Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Strict liability could very well apply here. However, it can be tough to prove, because it requires ignoring the negligence of the injured party.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I hit submit too soon. With SL, if the tiger simply got out without being enticed, then yes, the zoo is on the hook. If this goes to trial, it will be interesting to see if the zoo can get a jury to buy off on the injured's party's negligence, which might require a counter claim on their part.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's what I would guess will happen. The zoo is in trouble here if the walls were shorter than they should have been and it can be shown that they knew a tiger could possibly escape. But they might try to recover some of the damages by counter-suing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan No question the zoo is in trouble and will pay dearly. However, when it was recently inspected, according to the zoo's director, no one mentioned anything about the walls being too short. If he can prove that, it's going to be harder to prove that the zoo was outright negligent. I still think this case will ultimately center around what those three visitors were up to. You have to keep in mind that the tiger has been on display for over two years. Maybe it suddenly dawned on the tiger to try to go after these guys out of the blue. But that's odd after all the crying babies, shouting children, all the noisy visitors up to this point the cat has been exposed to. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the investigation.
Originally Posted By barboy "No question the zoo is in trouble and will pay dearly." Yes, the zoo is most likely in trouble here--- they face some serious exposure. Looking ahead, way ahead, the one thing that is on my mind is that this incident went down in San Francisco...... a complainant's dream backdrop: the prospective jury pool is quite liberal, liberal indeed! If this thing ever found its way in front of a jury look for these types of "arguments" from a potential complainant: "the zoo had a duty to keep patrons safe and it failed miserably(the necessary "proximate cause" will be established easily)" "he was only 17 and had his whole life in front of him and he planned to be a _____ someday" "he brought smiles to so many people and he can never be replaced" "he loved and respected animals so much that he wanted to see them in person in a place where he felt safe only to be stalked and ripped apart by a vicious and dangerous tiger; the most horrible way to die"
Originally Posted By barboy One thing to consider if the zoo is found to have breached some code, formal regulation or law(neg. per se) and that breach helped bring on this attack then "good night Irene", "game over", "adios" for the zoo.
Originally Posted By gadzuux If the defendant - in this case, the zoo - were to claim some provocation on the part of the plainiffs, the burden of proof would be on the zoo. Since they have no proof, and scant evidence, it's a risky gambit to even make the accusation in the first place. I've heard reports of a "witness" who states that she saw four males - not three - roaring and "carrying on" in front of the tiger enclosure shortly before the incident. Even if everything she says is true, it's pretty thin testimony that doesn't stack up well against the victim's case. And this is (again) another failure of the zoo itself. They don't seems to have any methods in place to prevent such behavior, let alone any video to support their contentions. >> a complainant's dream backdrop: the prospective jury pool is quite liberal, liberal indeed! << True enough, but the jury pool will also be made up of local san franciscans - likely familiar with the zoo. This seems like a classic case for a private settlement outside the courtroom, and just skip the fight altogether.
Originally Posted By jonvn well, now the city attorney and the DA are both getting involved. It's a mess. These guys are plainly jerks, and I bet they did do something to antagonize the cat, but the cat still can't be allowed to get out. Also in the paper today, they found that the polar bear exhibit, which is another favorite of ours, is also deficient. And those monsters are VICIOUS. Darned good thing they aren't that bright, and never tried to get out. If that happened, there's like no stopping those things, except with an elephant gun.
Originally Posted By Mr X That's how they killed chef on South Park...mauled to death by a bear and a mountain lion. Well, close enough anyway. Hey Jon...would you rather be killed by a tiger or a polar bear. I'd pick the bear. Cats like to play with their food.
Originally Posted By jonvn Actually, a tiger kills by grabbing at the throat and ripping it open with its canines. It's pretty fast. A bear would just shred you to bits. Probably a tiger. I suspect, though, that I will die of cancer, like everyone else in my family does. I'm trying to die of heart disease. Really. I'd rather have that than cancer.
Originally Posted By jonvn Gotta die of something. I think heart disease is a lot less painful. Just tiring.
Originally Posted By barboy "polar bear exhibit, . And those monsters are VICIOUS." Yes, like I said earlier they actually TRACK humans; One could be far, far away but polar bears and grizzlies(and the Bengal tiger groups) may well choose to follow and hunt humans.
Originally Posted By barboy "A bear would just shred you to bits." A bear, like a grizzly or its close cousin the brown, has no standard way to take out a human: people have been decapitated with one initial claw swoop..... others have been bitten all over multiple times...... still others have been pounced on and crushed and played with causing massive bruising, broken bones and swellings and left to die. And then there are others who have been thoroughly shredded by a teeth and claw combination.
Originally Posted By barboy "people have been decapitated with one initial claw swoop....." I would imagine that it's not so much due to the bear having a sharp claw but more from the sheer tremendous force of getting struck in the head/neck as to knock it from the body. A grizzly has the capability to knock down a moose easily, yes a MOOSE!
Originally Posted By barboy "Would you like to buy some?" No, probably not..... Seeing mangled bodies would not be my idea of fun, but thanks for the offer
Originally Posted By Mr X Posts 135-137 lmao! Too funny. We'd better watch out, or this topic might get relocated to the play pen.
