Whitehall couple sues Pittsburgh zoo over son’s mauling by painted dogs |

Whitehall couple sues Pittsburgh zoo over son’s mauling by painted dogs

JC Schisler | Tribune-Review
A memorial for Maddox Derkosh rests outside the closed gates of the African painted dogs exhibit inside the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium on Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012. The boy, who investigators say fell off a railing Sunday and inside the painted dogs exhibit while his mother was holding him, bled to death after being mauled.
In one of the family’s last photographs of him, Maddox Derkosh, 2, checks out the lion exhibit as he makes his way through the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium on Nov. 4, 2012, shortly before he fell into the African painted dog exhibit and was mauled to death.
Maddox Derkosh, 2, of Whitehall was killed Nov. 4, 2012, when he fell into the African painted dogs exhibit at the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium.

The Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium “blatantly ignored” a worker’s early warning about a wild dog enclosure where 2-year-old Maddox Derkosh tumbled to his death in November, a wrongful death lawsuit filed on Thursday alleges.

Zoo worker Lou Nene told horticulture curator Frank Pizzi that he was worried a child could fall into the enclosure, having watched parents lift their youngsters onto a railing or hold them up to see the animals’ unguarded viewing area every day, according to the suit.

But Pizzi cautioned Nene that it wasn’t his concern and instructed him to get back to work, the suit filed in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court alleges.

The complaint does not specify when the conversation took place other than indicating it was before the toddler’s Nov. 4 death. Nene and Pizzi could not be reached on Thursday. Zoo officials do not comment on pending legal action, zoo spokeswoman Tracy Gray said.

The 41-page lawsuit leveled stark new allegations in the only visitor fatality in the zoo’s 115-year history. Attorneys accused zoo officials of arming workers with unloaded or blank tranquilizer guns, keeping non-functioning tranquilizer darts on site and falling short of safety standards used at other zoos.

“The zoo knew or should have known how to protect its visitors from the killer dogs, and the fatal consequences that would likely result when ‘human prey’ suddenly appeared in their territory,” Philadelphia-based attorney Robert J. Mongeluzzi said in a written statement.

He said an “abysmal emergency-response plan” crushed any chance for Maddox to survive. The Derkosh family wants to get an explanation for the alleged dangers and to protect others from “the same unimaginable tragedy,” Mongeluzzi added.

Neither Mongeluzzi nor the Derkosh family was available for interviews.

The exhibit closed immediately after the attack — in which one wild dog was shot to death to allow emergency access to the mauled child — and did not reopen. CEO Barbara Baker announced last month that officials had moved four of the 10 remaining wild dogs to other zoos and were in the process of moving the others, though it wasn’t clear whether that process is complete.

Derkosh family attorneys listed six counts against the nonprofit zoo and its parent organization, the Zoological Society of Pittsburgh, alleging negligence, wrongful death and emotional distress. The Derkoshes are seeking a jury trial and more than $100,000 in damages, including more than $50,000 for emotional and mental injuries endured by mother Elizabeth Derkosh.

“Certainly, one would expect the damages they are expecting to recover are going to be significantly more than that,” said Mark Milsop, an attorney with the Berger and Green law firm in Washington’s Landing. He called the case “a winner,” pointing especially to netting just below the elevated observation deck where Maddox fell.

The net was meant to stop debris, but not people, from falling into the enclosure.

“If you can foresee that debris would fall into your exhibit, shouldn’t you foresee that people would fall in?” Milsop said. “You’d certainly expect that there would be a second barrier of some sort.”

According to the complaint, Elizabeth Derkosh lifted and held Maddox while she stood on the observation deck, trying to give him a better view of the wild dogs below. He lurched forward and slipped from her grasp, dropping onto the debris net, the complaint states. It does not state whether Elizabeth Derkosh placed the child on the railing.

Maddox bounced from the net onto the ground in the enclosure, which lacked more solid and impenetrable barriers built to contain wild dogs in other zoos, according to the complaint. Medical examiners identified more than 220 injuries on Maddox’s body, it says. District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. reviewed the matter and said no one would face criminal charges.

The mother tried to follow after Maddox, her only child, but was held back by another zoo visitor, according to the civil complaint.

The Department of Agriculture is running a separate investigation focusing on enclosure designs and other logistics at the zoo to determine whether zoo conditions contributed to the fatality. The agency is checking for violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

USDA spokeswoman Tanya Espinosa said she could not comment on when the review might be complete, though the Association of Zoos and Aquariums has said the dog enclosure passed muster in its earlier accreditation reviews.

The AZA said after the attack that it would review the design again. Messages seeking AZA comment on Thursday were not returned.

Staff writer Adam Brandolph contributed to this report. Adam Smeltz is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5676 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.