Sanjana Samudrala

16 December 2022

It is fair to say that all consumers deserve a safe experience with the product or service they are purchasing. A common business policy is implementing warning signs, ostensibly to serve as a sort of warning to the customer; such practices are prevalent in almost every industry. However, rather than making an honest effort to promote consumer safety, many businesses use warnings signs to shift liability, to divert the blame and protect themselves from lawsuits. This is very evident in the legal field, where warning signs are used as a ‘shield’ for businesses and property owners against lawsuits and personal injury claims [2].

At the surface level, warning signs are meant to prevent injury and disclose potentially hazardous environments [1]. However, recent studies show that warning signs often struggle at even this basic function. An associate professor at the Texas A&M School of Public Health, S. Camille Peres, “found that the guidelines currently used for consumer products for hazard statement designs did not translate to procedures used by workers in high-risk industrial settings” [3]. For example, when you buy a pack of cigarettes, there’s a warning label on the package about the negative consequences that can result from smoking: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Smoking by Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide, etc. [4]. Here, the consumer is made aware of the risks because it is documented right in front of them in great detail. This, however, is not the case for warning signs in potentially dangerous environments. Unlike products that come with warning labels, warning signs in environmental settings often enjoy a marginalized placement; oftentimes, there is a lack of emphasis placed on them and not enough reinforcement, resulting in many people overlooking warning signs and not taking them seriously enough.

Even noticed warning signs “often fail to change people’s behavior.” One of the core factors behind processing warning signs is the perception of danger. According to psychologist Marc Green, “the greater the perceived risk and hazard, the greater the likelihood of compliance.” If individuals fail to perceive an environment as potentially dangerous, they are much less likely to heed the warnings of an accompanying sign [10]. All this suggests that while warning signs may be helpful, they are not the most effective or reliable at mitigating injuries and fatalities in an environmental setting. Although warning signs were designed with the expectation that people abide by what the sign is saying, compliance is self-enforced (and often ignored), causing serious complications.

The policy of using warning signs is insufficient and has allowed businesses to get away with scrimping money to avoid putting in place the safety measures that are absolutely necessary to prevent injuries and death. For example, in 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the Pittsburgh Zoo when a toddler died after falling over a railing when his mother was trying to let him get a better view of the zoo [5]. The suit claims negligence in the management of the exhibit, which had an observation deck with an open, unprotected window overlooking the area [6]. Sources state that “the exhibit featured a number of warning signs urging visitors to be careful when using the deck;” those warning signs were the only sustained safety measure in place. [11].

One of the arguments the zoo made was that the mother should have known better than to hold her child above the railing when there was a warning sign that said not to. However, the Pittsburgh Zoo is ultimately still responsible for creating a dangerous environment in which the mother, and plenty of other visitors, had the ability to do so.

Something that was brought to life during the lawsuit and became an integral part of the family’s suit, is that “parents regularly lifted their children onto the unprotected area overlooking the wild dogs exhibit” [12]. Unfortunately, it took the death of a child for the zoo to realize that relying on warning signs as a major deterrent to dangerous and risky behavior is ignorant and exploitative.

Because instead of implementing any of the proper safety measures that could have saved that child’s life, something as simple as a higher railing or fencing so that no one could lean into the pit, the Pittsburgh Zoo chose to stake the lives of their guests on a warning sign. Instead of spending the money that would guarantee better safety for people visiting the zoo, the Pittsburgh Zoo covered its legal bases with the presence of warning signs, choosing greed over morality.

Moreover, in light of this incident, the Pittsburgh Zoo ended up closing for a little bit, but no reparations were actually made. Although the exhibit was changed and the African Wild dogs were reallocated to different zoos, all of this happened after the two-year-old’s death [13]. At the end of the day, a child is now dead, and a grieving mother was torn apart and harassed all over the internet because of inadequate safety measures that should have been in place at the beginning.

The problem inherently lies with how much power businesses have in this country. American economist, Milton Friedman, argues that businesses should focus on profitability as long as it is within the bounds of laws and ethics, suggesting that “Greed is Good” [7]. Unfortunately, putting greed above all fundamentally flies in the face of good ethics. When it comes to these policies, as a society, we are often complicit, turning a blind eye to all dangers until a tragedy has already struck. Only then is a business at last incentivized to make a change. Not because of morality but because action has become cheaper than facing their continued public image disaster of doing nothing.

Something that is so frequent, yet so frowned upon, is making mistakes. People make mistakes. What is common sense to one person might not be common sense to another. People are so wrapped up with everything else that happens in their lives that sometimes they just miss important things, like warning signs. This does not make them any less deserving of a safe consumer environment.

I believe that the Pittsburgh Zoo holds at least some responsibility in this situation. This death could have been easily prevented had they taken the time to construct a proper barrier, rather than saving the money and leaving the job to nothing but a warning sign.

Unfortunately, the Pittsburgh Zoo is far from alone. Over the years, we have seen many deaths and injuries in similar circumstances, but little is ever done. We’ve seen this in SeaWorld when a homeless man named Daniel Dukes was drowned by an orca after getting into a tank [8]. We’ve seen this in Disney with their numerous alligator attacks, one of which was a toddler drowning when an alligator pulled them into the water [9]. Even if the business in question does something after the fact, a lack of public scrutiny ensures their counterparts feel little incentive to do anything, and the cycle of tragedy stays on repeat, time and time again.

In terms of the Pittsburgh Zoo situation, we can all point fingers and say that mother was at fault, but at the end of the day, a child is now dead; ultimately, the responsibility lies on the zoo for allowing her to act in such a way in the first place. The practice of businesses includingwarning signs for their products or services is nothing more than a policy of self-interest masquerading as a promotion of consumer safety. By taking token action but avoiding real work, businesses are able to avoid spending the money necessary to put into place real safety measures that would be more effective in preventing injuries and death. Businesses must be held accountable for their actions – or lack thereof – and as consumers, we are the ones who have the power to do so.

[1] “The Importance of Safety Signs.” Brady ID Austrailia. Accessed November 28, 2022. https://www.bradyid.com.au/the-importance-of-safety-signs. 

[2] Tikriti, Amir. “Can a Warning Sign Limit a Property Owner’s Liability?” http://www.alllaw.com. Nolo, October 7, 2020. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/warning-sign-affect-liability-property-owner.html. 

[3] “Do Warning Signs Improve Safety in the Workplace? New Study Says No.” Research@Texas A&M, February 23, 2022. https://research.tamu.edu/2022/02/23/attention-please-warning-signs-and-alert-icons-dont-work-study-says-%EF%BF%BC/. 

[4] “2000 Surgeon General’s Report Highlights: Warning Labels.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, July 21, 2015. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/2000/highlights/labels/index.htm. 

[5] ABC News. ABC News Network. Accessed November 28, 2022. https://abcnews.go.com/US/boy-dead-mauling-pittsburgh-zoo/story?id=17639547. 

[6] Barnes, Jonathan. “Parents Sue Pittsburgh Zoo over Toddler’s Mauling Death.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, May 23, 2013. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-zoo-mauling/parents-sue-pittsburgh-zoo-over-toddlers-mauling-death-idUSBRE94M19H20130523. 

[7] Hartman, Neal. “Social Responsibility Matters to Business – a Different View from Milton Friedman from 50 Years Ago.” MIT Sloan, January 11, 2021. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/experts/social-responsibility-matters-to-business-a-different-view-milton-friedman-50-years-ago. 

[8] Shelton, Jacob. “The 11 Most Awful Incidents to Ever Happen at SeaWorld.” Ranker. Ranker, September 2, 2022. https://www.ranker.com/list/seaworld-incidents/jacob-shelton. 

[9] Sarahleonardjourno. “Disney World’s Hidden Alligators after 200 Removed Following Death of Toddler.” mirror, May 20, 2022. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/disney-worlds-hidden-alligators-after-26974092. 

[10] The psychology of warnings. Accessed November 28, 2022. https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/psychwarnings.html. 

[11] “Killing of Maddox Derkosh.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, November 7, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Maddox_Derkosh. 

[12] Kearney, Laila. “Pittsburgh Zoo, Parents Settle over Toddler’s Mauling Death.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, June 2, 2014. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-zoo-mauling-idUSKBN0ED1NH20140602. 

[13] New York Daily News. “Parents Settle Lawsuit against Pittsburgh Zoo after 2-Year-Old Fatally Mauled .” New York Daily News, January 9, 2019. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/parents-settle-lawsuit-pittsburgh-zoo-mauling-article-1.1814515.

Image via Pexels Free Photos.