Originally Posted By plpeters70 "But standing up in a moving boat makes it likely to happen. That's a different set of circumstances than if one of the boats suddenly capsizes and guests are injured." That's true, and in a situation like that, I think it would clearly be that persons fault that he was injured. But in this situation, standing on the railing and taunting the tiger should NOT lead to the animal escaping -- that just shouldn't be possible. The zoo has a responsibility to make sure that the animals cannot get out of their enclosures -- taunted or not.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I have to confess to some relevqant bias here as to MY opinion. In my lifetime, I have had 2 very complusive and totally irrational fears. 1.) I fear flying. I have totally overcome this fear. My neighbor is a captain for THE major airline in Atlanta. He got me into an educational course for people who fear flying. We watched video about safety, we were lectured by pilots that had been flying for decades, and at the end of the brainwashing, we all flew from Atlanta to Augusta GA, and back on a MD-80, a long but narrow jet. Believe it or not, at the end of the thing I had truly and totally reasoned away my irrational fear of flying. I have flown countless times since, and if not for kids, I would have certainly been able even to sleep on the plane. Call me weak mingded or something if you like, but I think I am quite the opposite. I recognized that this was a very big flaw in myself and I took steps to "fix" it. Even before I overcame the fear of flying, I still flew white-knuckled. I never let my family miss out due to my fear. Now having said all that...to say this... As stated above, there were 2 fears or phobias. 2.) I fear the large cats. Please don't mistake my fear of these beautiful creatures for hatred. I think they are wonderful and magnificient. I just get really sketchy when we go to the zoo and it's time to get up close and personal with them. For some reason they don't bother me on the Safari at WDW-AK. The best example of my fear of big cats is this. There is a city on the gulf coast of Florida that has a sort of zoo. I wouldn't say that it's a bonified zoo, whatever that means, but you can certainly pay, go inside, and see all sorts of exotics. I especially loved the mandrills but anyway, one attraction there is a massive male African lion. He is in what I would call a pen of sorts, which if memory serves is basically a chain link fence, made into an enclosure. There is 4 sides and a "roof" all of chain link fence. It's been a few years since we went there, but the thing I remember most was, I was walking with my then 3 children, and we come around a blind corner of sorts, and there he was, maybe 20 feet away from us. He looked at us with total indifference, but for some reason it chilled me to the core. I never felt that I was in harms way, but instinct told me loud and clear that one may not want to waste a lot of time at that spot. LOL So, as I read about this SF Zoo escape, I cannot begin to imagine what those guys felt like when the tiger came on them. I wonder what other people felt like when they saw the tiger pass them by. The whole spectacle scares the hell out of me. I wonder if there is a "class" to aleviate my fear of big cats.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<It wasn't hungry. It was pissed.>>> LOL! So true. However, are you saying that the zoo is only responsible to keep the tiger in its enclosure if no one pisses it off? I mean just listen to that. It just makes no sense to me. And YES I AM saying that the guys who taunted the tiger are not to blame, AT ALL. I am also saying the Tiger is not to blame. Who does that leave?
Originally Posted By jonvn The zoo won't countersue. Really, a judge will simply direct a verdict against the zoo. It's that cut and dried. "A man enters a restricted area at Great America" That's different. If these guys were attacked inside the tiger enclosure, that'd be more similar. "But the circumstances do matter" Not really. The tiger escaped its cage. That is the only thing that matters. You may not like it, I think these guys probably did do something stupid, but the tiger got out, and there is nothing the zoo can really bring up that gets around that. "the tiger getting free was not a matter if "if" but a matter of "when."" Apparently tigers have escaped this enclosure twice in the past. "But it wasn't." But it could have been. "Keep in mind these cats are typically fed in the afternoon." This actually happened the day the big cats were not fed. As far as being drunk in the zoo, if this were really a big concern, then perhaps the zoo should not be selling alcohol at its food stands.
Originally Posted By jonvn "1.) I fear flying. " I have that too. I have mostly gotten over it. It's 99% better. I still get anxiety leading up to a flight. But I don't go into quiet hysterics on the plane anymore. That used to be really bad. "2.) I fear the large cats." Evolution at work.
Originally Posted By barboy DVC and jonvn, let's change animals and physical environment for a moment. Say one has a large aggressive rottweiler in his locked up yard and has conspicuously posted signs on his fence saying "no trespassing" and another depicting the image of a dog's head and teeth with the words "danger" and some guy smokes a joint and throws rocks at the animal and climbs on the fence looking bait the dog to jump its enclosure and it does and ultimately bites the taunter's ass.... should the dog owner have to pay up?
Originally Posted By Mr X **The tiger no doubt had been taunted by other guests in the two years that it was on display. Perhaps these taunts were just the last straw. Or perhaps they took it to the next level, pelting it with pinecones and such?** You're anthropomorphizing here. It's not like the tiger sat there and thought "okay, this is the last straw! I'm gonna jump outta here like I've always thought about and get those guys!". Sure the animal might have been stressed. Which sucks, of COURSE. But it's unrelated to the fact it was kept in an escapable enclosure. Really, it is. And the taunting or whatever, bad as it was if it actually did happen, had nothing to do with "aiding" the tiger out, or anything like that. **But it wasn't. It was three high, drunk youths standing on a railing and taunting a tiger.** So what would you be saying if it HAD been a crying baby that "provoked" the tiger into escaping?
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, actually. The dog owner is liable. The dog owner has total responsibility to keep the dog restrained.
Originally Posted By barboy "So what would you be saying if it HAD been a crying baby that "provoked" the tiger into escaping?" I would say that is NOT an example of a successful "intervening cause" thus, the zoo is in trouble.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The zoo won't countersue. > Maybe not. But they could. (And for the record I agree that if the cat could escape its enclosure, the zoo will and should be held liable. I'm just thinking of possible legal countermeasures. In a world where one can sue McDonald's for serving coffee that was (gasp!) hot--and win--countersuing for taunting a tiger is a possibility, regardless of the merits.)
Originally Posted By Mr X **I would say that is NOT an example of a successful "intervening cause" thus, the zoo is in trouble.** That doesn't make sense. What's the difference if some jerk teenagers stress the animal or a noisy baby does it? Stress is stress right? People are trying to make an argument that the animal could be pissed off enough to want to escape..but a noisy baby could have the very same effect.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But they could. " Anyone can sue for anything. SOme guy sued a cleaners for tens of millions of dollars over a pair of pants. It doesn't mean they will prevail. Here's a blurb on dog bite laws: <a href="http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/civil.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGE S/civil.htm</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn To quote: California Civil Code section 3342 provides as follows: 3342. (a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It doesn't mean they will prevail.> I didn't say they would. I said they could try. As you say (and I said earlier), people sue for anything.
Originally Posted By barboy You are being too obstinate here as there are defenses available to "strict liab." I brought up maybe 3 already. I agree that the chances are that the zoo is in trouble but it is not automatic like you keep insisting. Furthermore, even if the zoo was in violation of a code "neg. per se" may still not be applied. The breach of a law or gov't directive must be relevant to the subject event. Hypothetically: say there is a law that all tigers must be fed at 1 pm and the zoo fed them at 1:30 instead. That breach would not constitute neg. per se as to this case.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I brought up maybe 3 already." Well, except that they don't matter. They really just don't. Sorry.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains I have a couple of questions (maybe they were already answered and I missed it) Did the zoo know the fence was too low? Had the safe height of fencing been changed since this exhibit been opened? And finally - Hadn't this zoo recently been inspected and NOT notified of any fence issues?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Ah Rotts! An animal I can identify with. Yes sad to say Georgia probably boasts the nations largest population of viscious dogs, particularly in the wife-beater red neck districts. I've often thought that the owners of these dogs are not held responsible when their Rott, Pot Bull, whatever, attacks and kills a child or an adult or whatever. But I get your point Barboy, it is the exact same thing.
Originally Posted By jonvn In particular, the dog bite situation you mention. I pointed out the very specific law regarding that.
