While we could argue that no animals should be kept in captivity, or that better methods could be utilized when dealing with human intrusion into animal exhibits, I'm focusing on the parents here.
The parental duty to supervise is inseparable from the parental duty to rear a child. A child, who because of his age and inexperience cannot appreciate surrounding dangers, must be properly supervised in order to keep him safe. The child in this case was only 4. His parents should have taken more responsibility pertaining to his supervision. The child willfully disobeyed. Well, not really. I suspect the child wasn't warned to "stop that" while prowling near the bushes because the parents hadn't even noticed him doing so. (It would have taken time for him to go through the bushes and find a gap that allowed him to gain access to the exhibit. This wasn't a case of him climbing over a wall in a matter of seconds while Mom's head was turned.)
I'm not heartless. As the father of a child, I know a 4 year old is a pain in the ass. I took my daughter to the zoo at that age and, honestly, my attention was more on her rather than the animals, mostly because she wanted to see everything, touch everything, and get up close and personal with everything. I couldn't get so caught up in taking pictures or observing what was in the exhibit that I lost track of her. Was the visit pleasant for me? Of course! I experienced the zoo through her reactions to new surroundings. It was a chance to interact with her. It provided teaching moments. That said, I'm stern. Even at that age, my daughter wasn't prone to vanishing from sight or running away because I took (and still take) my parental responsibilities seriously.
The zoo probably won't receive any compensation regarding the loss of an animal currently on the WWF Critically Endangered Species list. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.09: Property Damage does impose liability on parents when a child willfully causes damage to property, but this wording is too vague. We don't know if the child willfully disobeyed. I suspect the child wasn't warned to "stop that" while prowling near the bushes because the parents hadn't even noticed him doing so. (It would have taken time for him to go through the bushes and find a gap that allowed him to gain access to the exhibit. This wasn't a case of him climbing over a wall in a matter of seconds while Mom's head was turned.) The news focuses on the gorilla yet doesn't at all address the fact that the parents bear some responsibility for "policing" their child's activities.
What say you, NSG? Should parents be held accountable if their unsupervised child, due to his inability to grasp the severity of the situation, engages in activity that results in property loss? Should these particular parents be charged with negligence? Do you feel that, in general, parents in the US seem less vigilant when compared to parents in other Western societies?
I believe they should be held accountable. In my opinion, they should be held liable for the cost to replace the gorilla.
edit: typo
edit: additional news source NY Times article. Thanks, Farn.
Monday Update: Outrage grows
Tuesday Update: USDA to investigate incident and exhibit safety measures cincinnati.com; DA announces criminal investigation news piece & Hamilton County Prosecutor Press Release
Wednesday Update: they've confirmed his age as 3. Criminal charges (against parents?) not ruled out. sauce.
Sunday 6 June Update: Prosecutor to decide charges