Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I know that doesn't seem fair, but it doesn't always take a jerk to upset an animal - sometimes it can be something that seems totally innocent.<< If it were something totally innocent, that would be one thing. To me, it would even be different had they done their taunting NOT atop the railing. That's what crosses the line. No one answered it -- what about someone standing up in a Pirates boat? Or Standing on the air gates on Big Thunder? Or standing on the railing of the Mark Twain? At what point does an iota of personal responsibility come into play vs. "always keeping guests safe no matter what"?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No matter WHAT, a zoo needs to build an enclosure so it's virtually impossible for a dangerous animal to escape.<< I said that and you called it hyperbole. LOL!
Originally Posted By Mr X None of that is relevant as far as I can tell, unless a dangerous animal got loose on one of the rides. Really, it's just a different thing to me.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Not "well, as long as no-one bothers the animal or whatever, it should be alright".<< I seriously doubt that anyone at the San Francisco Zoo had that attitude.
Originally Posted By Mr X **I said that and you called it hyperbole. LOL!** No, building a reasonably escape-proof enclosure (to industry standards AT LEAST) is not hyperbole. Shouting "FINE! Let's just build hundred foot fences and all look at the animals through binoculars because of a couple of jerks!" is.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It isn't inconcievable that they could have lost their balance and landed on the other side of the rail, especially while intoxicated." Yes, they could have fallen off the rail. And then the tiger escaped, making the zoo strictly liable.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Shouting "FINE! Let's just build hundred foot fences and all look at the animals through binoculars because of a couple of jerks!" is.<< I didn't "shout." The exclamation points are yours.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And then the tiger escaped, making the zoo strictly liable.<< true. But the extent that the survivors contributed to provoking the animal matters as that can lower the amount of damages the zoo will have to pay. Bottom line, and then I've said all I have to say ad nauseum on this thread, so I'll shut up about it: I don't like the idea that these clowns essentially get rewarded for their part in causing the incident. I don't think they deserved the death penalty for their actions. The tiger should not be able to escape. But there's a hugely different set of circumstances here than someone innocently enjoying the zoo in a normal, reasonable way.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains I think the two man/boys who survived this should consider that their prize - They made a mistake that with other circumstances caused the death of a friend and them to be attacted by a tiger - they should thank their lucky stars and move on with their lives!! The zoo was punished by having to lose an endagered animal - Luckily no one else was hurt - If the ambulance chasers would stay out of it, maybe it could all be done and over with - because we all know the person who is going to come out with all the money is the Lawyer!!
Originally Posted By jonvn "But the extent that the survivors contributed to provoking the animal matters" It seems like it should. But it doesn't, because the zoo is strictly liable. That means regardless, the zoo is responsible. There is no going around that point. And the fact is that the zoo SHOULD be sued, and they SHOULD lose a lot of money, otherwise they would have no incentive to keep the place safe. That is what lawsuits are about, not just to get money in a jackpot, but to ensure that things are safe. Think about airline safety. If there wasn't a ton of lawsuits after a crash, do you think the airlines would have as much reason to make sure that accidents did not happen? They really would not. Lawsuits serve an important role in society.
Originally Posted By pecos bill So, has it been established that the cat actually did leap out of the enclosure? Remember how the "experts" were confidently telling the press how it would be nearly impossible for such a thing to happen? If that is the case, then I cant have any sympathy for the Zoo. I would find them ignorant and arrogant in their obvious underestimation of these animals, especially if the enclosure designs were based on 60 year old data. I dont really like the idea, but if I were on the jury, I would feel duty bound to a generous settlement, even if these guys are morons.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Aren't the zoos non-profit? So taking money from them would come from where? Give them each a buck - Punishing the zoo more isn't going to benifit! I think if you give these people money you are then setting up other stupid people to do stupid things - Yes it is not their *fault* the tiger was able to jump out - but maybe them jumping up on the fence and such showed the tiger a way out!!
Originally Posted By jonvn "So, has it been established that the cat actually did leap out of the enclosure?" It climbed out. "Remember how the "experts" were confidently telling the press how it would be nearly impossible for such a thing to happen?" Because it was thought the enclosure was a certain size, that it turned out not to be. Not only did the tiger climb out, but there were at least two other instances of a tiger getting out of the same enclosure. "So taking money from them would come from where?" From the zoo and the city.
Originally Posted By Mr X **but maybe them jumping up on the fence and such showed the tiger a way out!!** Then it was an improper enclosure, plain and simple. There shouldn't have been "a way out" no matter what the people taught the tiger. Seriously, the more I read and write in this thread the more convinced I am that I'll probably never visit another zoo again (or at least thoroughly investigate the place before visiting!)! Heck, why play with fire!?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Seriously, the more I read and write in this thread the more convinced I am that I'll probably never visit another zoo again<< And I'm the "hyperbole" guy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Lawsuits serve an important role in society.<< They can do a lot of good and force changes that otherwise wouldn't happen, you're right. But they can also be abused and result in ridiculous things like labeling coffee cups with warnings that the contents are hot and other similar garbage.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, I agree they, like everything else, can be abused. But without them, there is no accountability for negligence or other misdeeds.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yup...like in Japan. Did you hear those "comfort women" who were repeatedly raped and tortured for years finally, after decades in court, got awarded a couple thousand bucks each?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>From the zoo and the city.<< Which means taxpayers. Taxpayers in the city and county of San Francisco will ultimately be the revenue source for whatever financial settlement these guys are awarded. The zoo will be safer (if it isn't sued out of existence) so that's a good thing. The "victims" will get some cash, the lion's share of which (pardon the pun) will go to their lawyers. The two brothers will likely be in the news again at some future date for a DUI accident or similar stuff, given their history. I was going to shut up, wasn't I? Sorry.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains So you think jon you think they deserve a big payout which since it's a non-profit and relies on contributions isn't really there - aside from any insurance they may have...And from the city - so where might that come from - from those who did nothing wrong (unlike the zoo and the boys)! These are wild animals who for however long have been in these enclosures being fed and cared for - therefore content and not acting upon their natural instincts to hunt...Along come some boys (yes I know their ages but I believe most men have more common sense) come along and taunt them climbing up on the fencing and throwing things at her - SO what does this wild animal do - attack a natural response in the wild. It was it's in her nature. She no matter how long she is captive is a wild animal - The whole thing is very sad for all including those who frequent the zoo and love seeing the tigers - I find it very interesting that with all the people there this tiger only went after those who were *attacking* her. It is also bad that the zoo fencing was not the proper hieght - instead of giving these trouble makers money - why not order the zoo to use that money to ensure all the fencing is where it should be and make sure nothing like this can happen again. Everyone should be thankful that this cat (who I agree shouldn't have been able to get out) only went for those who seemed to be a threat to her! I think by giving these boys a ton of money because they were completely stupid and behaving unacceptably and encouraged a dangerous situation is just crazy. This will let other stupid kids that behaving like this will be rewarded with money. We will end up with people high or drunk attempting stunts with dangerous animals just to get paid. When you add drugs and alcohol to people who don't seem to have any common sense you end up with deadly consequences.
