Originally Posted By Dabob2 <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.> I agree with this, and think it's reasonable. There was terrible behavior on the part of the boys, and they should be accountable for it. But there was terrible negligence on the part of the zoo, certainly if tigers had escaped before and they did nothing to change either the enclosure or the security situation, and they should be accountable for that. My guess is, if it goes to a jury, that - strict interpretation of the law be damned - the boys will be awarded money, but not the amount they would have had they been completely innocent bystanders. If I were a judge solely in charge of awarding damages, I think I'd: a). award the family of the dead boy a substantial amount of money, since after all, the zoo was negligent and life is precious; b). award the other two boys nothing more than medical costs, so as to not reward them for their behavior; c). require the zoo to change its enclosures and beef up its security, establishing a policy of no tolerance for taunting. And perhaps require it to pay the big bucks that might have gone to the two boys to something like a tiger preservation-in-the-wild fund.
Originally Posted By ElKay Post#323: Me:>>"might mitigate the strict liability " jonvn "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. << Wrong again. Check out this link: <a href="http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:x_LdMcJQnFYJ:www.wyolaw.org/outlines/Allison" target="_blank">http://209.85.173.104/search?q =cache:x_LdMcJQnFYJ:www.wyolaw.org/outlines/Allison</a>%2520Horn%2520(2002)/Torts%2520II%2520-%2520Spring%252000-Horn.doc+%22zoos+%2B+strict+liability%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us This appears to be from a Wyoming law school torts course describing several fundamental legal principals. "Strict Liability - liability without a requirement for negligence Benefits: Ease of administration Compensating innocent plaintiffs Movement has been toward negligence theory, but there are some pockets of strict liability remaining. These are: Conversion Need not be wrongful Take property, exercise dominion, must pay Animals Wild animals - animals that do not belong in domestic setting If hurts someone - strict liability Weighing the utility of keeping the animal against the risk, it may be negligent just to keep it. Non-reciprocal risk creation - some people are doing something significantly more risky than others Domesticated animals - those that people are "used to" having around, but which is known to his owner to be dangerous - do not get one bite free. Zoos - strict liability does not apply to wild animals kept in public zoos, because of the social benefit. Fencing in v. fencing out - common law was fencing in. This makes sense in some economies, but open range is a reality, so it made fencing in "ridiculous." " So there is a legal doctrine that zoo can be generally excluded by strict liability because of the benefit to society out weighs the inherent risk of bring wild animals in proximity to the general public. jonvin, you still keep talking through you hat. No matter how many times you say it doesn't make it so. As I requested before, show us were there is a law or legal principle that backs up your ad hominum statements. My view has always been that the zoo shares the liability in the tiger attack, but due to the questionable conduct of those 3 numbskulls, the zoo isn't responsible for all of the liability. That's a more resonable position that just throughing out a legal term without demonstrating how it is applied. Game, set and match,jonvn.
Originally Posted By jonvn "jonvin, you still keep talking through you hat." Yes, through my hat. Why do I get the feeling if I said something else, you'd take the exact opposite position anyway? Just funny how this works. In any case, no. The zoo is strictly liable. That's how it works. I don't know how things work in Wyoming, and don't really care. But here, the zoo is strictly liable for the situation of a tiger escaping. No game, set, or match. That's simply the rules. "due to the questionable conduct of those 3 " Of which you know nothing. "That's a more resonable position that just throughing out a legal term " You mean the one that actually applies. There is strict liability for injury resulting from dangerous animals. No reasonableness test is required. That is the law. You are not quite understanding what strict liability is. I suggest you go find out what it means. Basically, all these guys have to do is prove that they were harmed in a certain way, such as a tiger escaping, and that's all that is necessary. End of case. No fault needs be found by anyone. I think the zoo will probably also be found to be negligent, as well. But they are also going to be held accountable simply out of the strict liability. Furthermore, it is completely foreseeable by the zoo that their animals will be taunted by the public. This is an unfortunate problem, but one that the zoo must take into account when building and maintaining its enclosures. Flat out, the zoo is liable. Strictly, and on negligence. I'm not one to be teaching law school But you can read this: <a href="http://www.superpages.com/supertips/how-does-strict-liability-influence-personal-injury-suits.html" target="_blank">http://www.superpages.com/supe rtips/how-does-strict-liability-influence-personal-injury-suits.html</a> And then you can read this: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/13/BAKDUD50Q.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/13/BAKDUD50Q.DTL</a> And then you can give it up. I am getting tired of repeating this to you.
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, the negligence by the zoo is where the punitive damages will come from. And these guys will clean up. It's just a terrible situation. The zoo was in bad shape, it was getting back on its feet, and this happens. But it was very forseeable by the zoo. This particular tiger had attacked someone before, tigers had escaped from this enclosure before. The enclosure was substandard. There was no warning or emergency system in place. There was insufficient lighting. I hope the zoo can stay in business after this. These guys are going to get millions. Deservedly.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<My view has always been that the zoo shares the liability in the tiger attack, but due to the questionable conduct of those 3 numbskulls, the zoo isn't responsible for all of the liability.>>> Have the guys been charged with anything or are the still charges pending at this time? If they go to court and there are no chages pressed, and they say, "We did nothing to this Tiger," that will be the end of that. From what I understand, there are no charges against these boys.
Originally Posted By jonvn 'Have the guys been charged with anything or are the still charges pending at this time?' There are no charges, and it has been said there is no evidence, either. And no, it's not complicated. The zoo for its behavior afterwards could even be in more hot water for how they have created a smear campaign against the victims. They really are screwed.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 <<The tiger climbed out. This has happened before, as well.>> Is this true? I had not heard this before? A tiger escaped out of that some enclosure before? If that's the case, then not only "should" the zoo pay through their ***, but heads should roll also.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Is this true? I had not heard this before? A tiger escaped out of that some enclosure before?" Yes. And another time, it was reported to the zoo that a tiger had put its paws up over the top of the ledge, but did not get out. It's only 12.5 feet high. I think a housecat can just about jump that high, let alone a tiger.
Originally Posted By ElKay "There are no charges, and it has been said there is no evidence, either." Again, wrong. There's a shoe print on the rail that the police have matched to one of brothers and the father of the friend that died said that the brothers admitted they were standing on the rail doing a little taunting. That doesn't sound like no evidence. Oh and jonvn, one of the articles you offered up as your proof of the primacy of strict liability isn't all that you allege. "<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/</a> article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/13/BAKDUD50Q.DTL" I read that too a couple of days ago and the lawyer giving his opinion recounts that back in the 50's another jerk at the same zoo got clawed by a polar bear and his strict liability was tossed by the judge. So much for pooh-poohing the legal principles from Cheney's home state. Sure the lawyer goes on to say the general legal principals have been modified back in the early 60s, but the similarities in both cases are pretty close. In both cases the wild animal didn't attack unprovoked. The visitor initiated the incidents (feeding or taunting). "And then you can give it up. I am getting tired of repeating this to you." That's not for demonstrating your arguments with examples to prove your points, but repeatedly saying the same old thing. I've shown that 1) Strict Liability may not be held to a zoo because of the public good it is charged with providing. 2) Trespassers may lose some of their rights 3)You provided us with that article that showed the SF zoo set a precident against Strict Liability (thanks). Look, I'm just arguing the point that it is NOT an open and shut case against the zoo. While I don't absolve the zoo from ANY responsibility, I think I'm taking a measured view that both sides were responsibles for their actions or inactions. jonvn, just saying so ain't going to make it so.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Again, wrong." Do I have to keep posting local news articles for you for every single sentence I say? No, I'm not wrong. They said they were yelling and waving. People do this all the time, and as I said, the is in a position to forsee such behavior, and take it into account when it builds and maintains its enclosures. How many times does this have to be said to you? "I've shown that " Oh lord....you've shown dirt. You quoted an inapplicable wyoming discussion and you don't even understand that, and the article points out that the laws have changed since the 50s. You really don't seem to get it, or what is actually my guess, is that you are just trying to provoke me. "his opinion recounts that back in the 50's another jerk at the same zoo got clawed by a polar bear and his strict liability was tossed by the judge." And you apparently can't read, either. The law has been changed since then. "I'm just arguing the point that it is NOT an open and shut case against the zoo" The lawyers in the article I quoted would disagree. I think they know more than you. "I think I'm taking a measured view " You're taking a view that is based on simple negligence, and it isn't wholly applicable. Like I said, give it up. Basically, you're arguing simply to try and get me annoyed. This is how you started out a week or two here, and this is all you're about. "jonvn, just saying so ain't going to make it so" No. The law makes it so, and what I'm saying is actually the law in the matter, and the opinion of many lawyers across the state, as I have quoted, agree. When you get yourself quoted in the paper as a legal expert in such a matter, I'll give you more credence. Until then, I'll listen to the folks with the actual legal degree. Drop a note when that happens.
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, and no evidence: <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US /01/07/tiger.attack/index.html</a> So, no, I'm not wrong. Now you can, again, give it up.
Originally Posted By barboy I'm back.... I got a little bored elsewhere. At the risk of stating the obvious jonvn don't be too austere here. I'm almost sure that you know this but since I'm not 100% I'll say it anyway. The fact that the state won't bring criminal charges doesn't mean the end of the road for the zoo. It is a setback for sure for them. There is a HUGE difference between the two legal thresholds: "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal matters and "weight(preponderance)of the evidence" in the civil arena. A criminal conviction would have seriously undermined these teens' ability to collect big but it's not the end. If this thing finds its way in front of a jury(unlikely)jurors will not be too amused to find out the zoo had notice of short walls before the attack(if it did) nor would they feel too much sympathy for drunk provokers. Wait until discovery (whereby the players better be truthful and candid) because a few things might pop up for or against the "victims" or the zoo.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The fact that the state won't bring criminal charges" It's a misdemeanor. The problem is that, according to the cops, there isn't any evidence. That's what the article says that I put in here. If they really have no evidence, what are they supposed to tell a jury? And again, the problem with them even admittedly waving and yelling and standing on the rail is that such behavior by the public is forseeable. That means, it was something the zoo should have taken into account could happen, and done something about before it actually did. The other problem with mentioning that they were drunk is that the zoo sells liquor in the zoo. And therefore, they have to also be able to foresee that some people may be drunk as well. Being able to forsee certain things is a big deal. That is, if you set something up, and a situation that can arise is dangerous, and you knew something was likely to happen, if you did not take steps to mitigate that potential problem, you're negligent. People taunt zoo animals. All the time. The zoo should know that. That means that the zoo needed to take steps to ensure that either the animal taunting was not done, or that if done, it did not proceed to something as dangerous as what happened. That's what they have to do as an exhibitor of this sort of animal. How is the zoo in any way off the hook in this situation? Again, if they unlocked the cage, if they climbed into the cage, if they put a ladder in the cage, something like that? Then yes, they intervened. But yelling and waving? Standing on a rail that everyone also stands on or puts their kids on? That is typical behavior that people do all the time. Any jury who hears this, and the zoo would be insane to let this go to trial, would not only hear about the low wall, but the lack of a warning system, the lack of lighting, the lack of surveilance, the lack of security, the lack of employee training, the improper paperwork, ignoring employee warnings, previous attacks by this same tiger, and previous tiger escapes from this very same enclosure. How could anyone not fault the zoo on these things? They actually deserve to have their head handed to them, for operating in such a dangerous manner. They really add up to a total disregard for safety. Arguing aside, it really is outrageous behavior on their part.
Originally Posted By ElKay In reference to post#352, by jonvn. That news piece was written waaaaay back on Jan. 7. I posted an article dated around the 20th of this month, saying that the SFPD was continuing their investigation on the incident with a good chance of filing a misdemeanour, but still a chance of adding an unidentified felony charge. So there jonvn goes again, not only did he go back to a convienent out dated news piece, but ignored more recent reports just to support his position. Come on, jonvn, if you have time to cite old, outdated news to support your opinions, try something new and cite a court case that found a zoo in strict liability sometime since the the 1950's. Instead of just flatly rejecting any idea counter to your own. I think I've done a quick, but reasonable search of possible defenses to a blanket theory of ABSOLUTE strict liability. Still, all I hear is opinion without support.
Originally Posted By jonvn The investigation, as of the 18th, was shutting down. There is not much else to say. You've been given news articles that explain the issues to you, which contain quotes by prominent attorneys. You, on the other hand have quoted Wyoming law, if it can be called that. I'm not interested in explaining it again to you. Really. When this all plays out, you can buy me some flowers as a token of apology. Plastic ones will do.
Originally Posted By ElKay "The investigation, as of the 18th, was shutting down." Then why did you cite a story dated on Jan 7th? My ContraCosta News article said it was ongoing. Jonvn, saying so just doesn't make it so. Your expert clearly cited the Polar bear precident at the SAME zoo that had it been made 10 years later would likely be the precident for this somewhat similar case. However, because the state of CA change a good deal of the law in the entire state, it was less clear--not an impossibility for the zoo to use that defense. Instead of flowers, perhaps you need some warm milk to keep you from posting the same old tired arguments at 2:30AM on a Saturday????????????
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, I got the date wrong on that article. Something had the 18th on it. Meanwhile, they still aren't facing charges. "Jonvn, saying so just doesn't make it so." Yes, so you might as well stop. You keep repeating the same things, even though it's been shown to you why it's wrong. "posting the same old tired arguments " The reason I keep posting the same arguments is because they don't seem to be sinking in at all, and they are not complex. You simply are not absorbing what is said. You've already have had it explained to you now several times. By myself, as well as others. I can't help you any further.
Originally Posted By jonvn Anyway: The zoo is going to start putting the big cats back on display. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2008/01/28/chronicle/archive/2008/01/28/BAFPUNLLH.html?tsp=1" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/flat/arc hive/2008/01/28/chronicle/archive/2008/01/28/BAFPUNLLH.html?tsp=1</a> A comment from the zoo: "Under no circumstances is it OK for an animal to escape its enclosure," said Nick Podell, chairman of the San Francisco Zoological Society, the nonprofit that manages the zoo in partnership with the city. "I want to deliver a mea culpa for the zoo. There is no excuse."
Originally Posted By jonvn And now the investigation is officially "shelved" following an inability to find any evidence that any taunting took place: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/29/BA0TUOI4F.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/29/BA0TUOI4F.DTL</a>
