Originally Posted By ElKay jonvn: "Strict liability" No not quite in this case, perhaps. Check this out: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespasser" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T respasser</a> "Intent required The intent need not be to commit a trespass, but merely to go to a specific geographic place - if a person walking in a public park errantly leaves the park and enters private property, they are liable for trespass, even though they did not know that they had entered private land. However, a person who ends up on land where they did not intend to go is not liable for trespass. For example, a person walking in a public park who trips and rolls down a hill will not be liable for trespass just because the bottom of the hill is on private land." While this might be the weakest part of a defense, one can imagine that one or more of those 3 idiots crossed over a decroative fence that had a sign that said "Do NOT Cross" inorder to get to the rail that was near the edge of the tiger exhibit. Crossing that fence might mitigate the strict liability on the part of the zoo. Notice how Disneyland has so many iron fences around EVERYTHING, especially bodies of water? Also notice at DL that every door that doesn't normally let guests in or out of attractions, restaurants or restrooms say EMPLOYEES ONLY. Leaving those areas would imply tresassing. "Physical invasion The trespasser need not enter the land in person. Throwing any physical object onto the land of another - a rock, a clod of dirt, a bucket of water - is a trespass. (snip) There must be some physical entry, however. Causing noise, light, odors, or smoke to enter the land of another is not a trespass, but is instead a different tort, nuisance." So throwing objects into the tiger exhibit shows trespass, negating the strict liability standard for the zoo. "a duty to warn them of deadly conditions on the land which would be hidden to them, but of which the property owner is aware. A warning sign at the entrance to the land will suffice for this purpose. However, a property owner is under no duty to ascertain hazards on his property, and cannot be held liable for failing to discover a deadly hazard which injures a trespasser." Also this might not be bullet-proof, but placing a sign at the entrance of the zoo, in front of the tiger enclosure or even on the ticket could render strict liability issues doubtful. "Furthermore, an adult trespasser who is injured while on a defendant's property cannot sue under a theory of strict liability, even if the landowner was engaged in ultrahazardous activities, such as the keeping of wild animals, or the use of explosives. Instead, the trespasser must prove that the property owner intentionally or wantoning injured the plaintiff to recover." This is where I believe jonvn is talking through his hat. The zoo might be able to avoid total liabilty in this case due to the fact that members of that group may have trespassed even a few feet into an area that was supposed to be off limits to the public, which gave the tiger an opportunity to lunge at them and escape. For all we know tigers might not try to chase anyone until it sees their legs, so by keeping the public far enough from the edge, the tiger might not have tried to attack. Absolutist and dogmatic positions without any sort of evidence in support is just plain wrong.
Originally Posted By Mr X **While this might be the weakest part of a defense, one can imagine that one or more of those 3 idiots crossed over a decroative fence that had a sign that said "Do NOT Cross" inorder to get to the rail that was near the edge of the tiger exhibit. Crossing that fence might mitigate the strict liability on the part of the zoo.** I don't think that would mitigate things, since the tiger got out and attacked them in a public area. If they'd been attacked inside the enclosure, sure. But anyway, I agree with Jon. It'll get settled out of court, I'm sure.
Originally Posted By jonvn You need to understand: The tiger got out of its enclosure. Whatever these guys did, that's the end of it. Unless they actually went in and broke the tiger out of its cage, which they did not, then the zoo is 100% at fault. "might mitigate the strict liability " Nothing is going to do that. "Absolutist and dogmatic positions without any sort of evidence in support is just plain wrong. " It's not dogmatic, it's the law. When you take on the responsibility of keeping a tiger, it is up to you to ensure it does not escape to harm anyone, no matter what the cause. That really is the end of it. You can go on all you want about things, but that is all there is going to be about it. This does not mean that the victims will get absolutely everything they ask for, either. That is to say, they won't get 400 trillion dollars just because the zoo is at fault. The damages still have to be determined. But the zoo is not going to get around this issue by saying these guys tresspassed or anything. Now, if they had trespassed into the cage, and got hurt in there, then maybe, but the difference is, and the thing that people keep forgetting, is that the TIGER ESCAPED and hurt these people. That is what makes the zoo totally at fault.
Originally Posted By barboy I brought up the prospects of **trespass** earlier as a counter to "strict liab." and jonvn summarily dismissed it as if I were talking nonsensically. It's time to give up. Gees.... just think what would have happened if I had tried to introduce the doctrine of "last clear chance" into this mix???? (which should not apply)
Originally Posted By Mr X That's the part I keep trying to explain as well. To argue that they somehow "caused" the tiger to escape, true or not, really doesn't matter because of the simple fact that the tiger shouldn't have been ABLE to escape, no matter what anyone tried to do to cause it to happen (unless they got a cherry picker and CARRIED it out or something, or unlocked a cage etc...).
Originally Posted By threeundertwo Wow, a lot of posts since I last visited this thread. 1) Many keep stating that the tiger "jumped out." I think that is an assumption that needs to be investigated further. I still want to know if the boys were sitting on the edge of the moat, giving her something to grab on to (their legs) that she couldn't before. This makes a huge difference to me, and is akin to unlocking the cage door. 2) A lawyer on the radio was talking about this the other day and said that in terms of liability, possessing a deadly animal is equivalent to transporting plutonium. Period. As much as I love the zoo, it bears full responsibility. The only thing that is a variable here is the amount of the settlement, depending on the perceived level of fault of the boys. 3) Also heard on the radio that the boys can be sued for actions leading to the death of an endangered species. I don't see any mention of that here. I'll go try to find a citation for that. Google certainly gives a lot of hits when searching on this story. . .
Originally Posted By ElKay "I don't think that would mitigate things, since the tiger got out and attacked them in a public area. If they'd been attacked inside the enclosure, sure." Cite us some supporting principal. This case the trio of jerks weren't just walking by minding their own business, there's proof that a foot print matching one of the brothers was on a rail that they weren't supposed near. You'd have a point if the tiger attacked a family not involved in the taunting and trespass. Thank goodness that didn't occur. I am no way saying that the zoo isn't liable whatsoever. I'm arguing that the reckless behavior of the group caused their own injuries and a death by not following possible warnings. That's a far cry from you and jonvn's absolutist position on strict liability.
Originally Posted By threeundertwo Ok, here's a mini law school lesson: <a href="http://www.mayitpleasethecourt.com/journal.asp?blogid=1701" target="_blank">http://www.mayitpleasethecourt .com/journal.asp?blogid=1701</a> "Finally, just to confuse things even further, there's a doctrine called strict liability, that applies to both dangerous animals and ultrahazardous activities. If it applies, which is likely, then the Zoo, the City and the AZA would be held liable because all the doctrine requires is two elements: damages and responsibility. The only defense is an intervening cause. " and (from earlier in the article) "The primary defense, if available, may involve something called an "intervening cause." If present, then that defense may eliminate the Zoo and City's liability because the taunting intervened and actually created the very danger suffered by the individuals injured and killed. Their action intervened in the causal chain, breaking the link between the breach of duty and damage suffered." So we're both right.
Originally Posted By threeundertwo So it seems the zoo's lawyers are going to have to prove that the taunting was over and above any that the tiger had experienced before, and specifically created a dangerous situation. I think that will be tough. See Lisann's post about people being on the wrong side of the railing at the grotto.
Originally Posted By barboy "The only defense is an intervening cause" Again, I brought up ****intervening cause**** several posts back and it was flat out rejected too by jonvn. I gave 3 maybe 4 examples of intervening cause. I should have stopped long ago and it is now time for ParkPass. I'll see all of you cool cats on the other topics.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I brought up the prospects of **trespass** earlier" Yes, and it doesn't matter. If they got into the enclosure, that'd be one thing, but you keep missing this point: The tiger escaped its enclosure. "Cite us some supporting principal." I have several times. I don't see why repeating it again for you will make a difference. "Many keep stating that the tiger "jumped out." I think that is an assumption that needs to be investigated further." The tiger climbed out. This has happened before, as well. "there's proof that a foot print matching one of the brothers was on a rail that they weren't supposed near." It does not matter. The TIGER ESCAPED. It can't do that. "That's a far cry from you and jonvn's absolutist position on strict liability." It's also a far cry from reality. The zoo is 100% responsible.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I brought up ****intervening cause**** several posts back and it was flat out rejected too by jonvn." As I have said, again repeatedly, if they went in there and opened the cage, or went in there and put a ladder in to get the tiger out, then that'd be one thing. There is no evidence they did any such thing, because they did not. The tiger climb out on its own. Drinking is not something a tiger cares about. These things people are bringing up are ludicrous.
Originally Posted By jonvn "So it seems the zoo's lawyers are going to have to prove that the taunting was over and above any that the tiger had experienced before, and specifically created a dangerous situation. I think that will be tough." They would also have to answer a few other little issues: Where was security, why did they not do anything to correct a plainly deficient enclosure when they had the knowledge of previous tiger escapes, why was there no lighting, why did employees not assist the men when they asked for help, and so on. Nothing these guys did could possibly overcome these various problems that the zoo would have in a court trial, if it got that far. There is no evidence that they did anything to cause the tiger to escape, such as unlatch its cage, and likely did little more than what the public has been doing at this enclosure for a long time now.
Originally Posted By jonvn By the way, about intervening acts: "An intervening cause relieves a defendant of liability only if it would not have been foreseeable to a reasonable person, and only if damage resulting from the defendant's own actions would not have been foreseeable to a reasonable person." No reasonable person would expected the tiger escape because they "yelled" at it, waved at it, or even threw a rock at it. It doesn't apply. Again, if you open the latch of the cage door, then a reasonable person would expect the tiger to be able to get out. If you climbed into the cage, a reasonable person would expect the tiger to maul you. If they dangled their legs, if the tiger caught on to them, then the legs would be mangled. But that was not necessary. A tiger is able to get out of a cage designed as it was. It had happened before. The zoo had prior knowledge of tiger escapes, a below standard enclosure, no lighting, no security, and employees refused to assist these men while they were being attacked. Give it up already. Insulting comments towards myself are not going to change these facts or the law. The zoo and the city are going to be making a huge payout, and they should. This was an extremely dangerous situation that had been NEGLECTED for years, after repeated warnings and other events had happened at this location. I myself have stood in these very spots many times. I could well have been a victim myself. There is no excusing the zoo for their wantonly negligent behavior in this manner.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan No reasonable person would stand atop a railing in a drunken condition, either. These guys weren't reasonable. They were intoxicated, at least one of them at twice the legal limit for driving a car. But be that as it may, the San Francisco Zoo is located near the ocean, and in earthquake country. It isn't unreasonable to imagine an earthquake powerful enough to damage whatever structures are built to contain the animals. An offshore earthquake could create a tidal surge, flood the zoo, and tigers and other dangerous animals might simply swim out to freedom. To borrow from Jurassic Park, "nature finds a way." All that aside, maybe it really is best that the zoo simply close down. Taxpayers can't and shouldn't be expected to foot the bill for this kind of thing. If we have devolved to a point where a fat payout awaits people who do unreasonable things and can't be held at all responsible for their own actions, maybe the thing to do is simply close the place. I've read that as many as a quarter of zoo guests taunt the animals in some way. Sometimes the few ruin things for the many. That's not hyperbole, I'm serious. There is a point at which having something like a zoo or a theme park or any enterprise is just not worth the cost nor the risk.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What's the doctrine of "last clear chance"?" It means if say a plaintiff has a chance of avoiding a problem, and did not take it, then a defendant might not be liable or there would be contributory negligence. It also does not apply.
Originally Posted By jonvn "No reasonable person would stand atop a railing in a drunken condition, either." A) The railing is about a foot or so from the sidewalk, and is about 18 inches high. It's not any sort of fence. It is completely accessible to the public, and people put their children on top of it all the time for a better look at the animals. B) It doesn't matter. You still would not expect a tiger to be able to get out of its enclosure. "They were intoxicated, at least one of them at twice the legal limit for driving a car." Unless they were driving a car in the zoo, I don't see how that matters. "It isn't unreasonable to imagine an earthquake powerful enough to damage whatever structures are built to contain the animals." This is true. Therefore, animal escapes are not unforseeable events, and the zoo needed to have in place a warning system of some sort for both the public and the employees. Guess what, there was none. "If we have devolved to a point where a fat payout awaits people who do unreasonable things" The unreasonable behavior was on the part of the zoo, which clearly was very negligent on many levels. "I've read that as many as a quarter of zoo guests taunt the animals in some way" Which further goes to indicate that their behavior is not unusual, or at least should not have been expected to result in a tiger escape and mauling. We shouldn't close the zoo. We should, on the other hand, have some security for the animals so they are not taunted at all, and have it be enforced. That should be the lesson here, if these guys actually did do anything unpleasant to the tiger. That sort of thing should not be tolerated. People should be ejected and fined. At the Oakland zoo, they are starting to now cart people out when they see them doing something a little out of line. Attitudes and behavior in this country have dropped through the floor. I think people need to be responsible for their behavior. In this case, people who taunt animals should be held accountable. But then, the zoo that did nothing about a dangerous situation should also be held accountable. Which is worse? Yelling at a tiger or letting the public be in danger? Again, the zoo failed to act upon people who may have been acting improperly. That again is their responsibility. If you can't behave, you don't get to stay. People should not have to tolerate the unpleasant behavior of others who try to ruin things for everyone. This is why you don't taunt animals at the zoo, this is why you don't wear offensive shirts to Disneyland, this is why you don't scream obscenities at people or pull knives on them. And you don't cover your face in swastika tattoos and expect the world to love you to pieces anyway. Somehow, people have managed to forget this stuff.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If you can't behave, you don't get to stay. People should not have to tolerate the unpleasant behavior of others who try to ruin things for everyone. This is why you don't taunt animals at the zoo, this is why you don't wear offensive shirts to Disneyland, this is why you don't scream obscenities at people or pull knives on them.<< I agree 100%. >>Attitudes and behavior in this country have dropped through the floor. I think people need to be responsible for their behavior.<< I agree 100%. As to the rest, I'll say reasonable people can disagree and leave it at that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> At the Oakland zoo, they are starting to now cart people out when they see them doing something a little out of line. << I'm glad to hear that. Hopefully that is happening across the country as a result of this. It's really time to take back places like this for people who want to enjoy them in the proper way.
