San Fran: Escaped Zoo Tiger Kills 1; Injures 2

[Browntggrr]

This is going to get ugly.

Especially if the hospital did not do a toxicology test on any of the victims.

[The Interpreter]

See also:

http://www.bloggernews.net/112805

[The Interpreter]

Tiger Attack Survivors' Attorney Says Zoo Ignored Cries for Help:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2/MNGNU7VE1.DTL

[marlfox_21]

Tiger Attack Survivors' Attorney Says Zoo Ignored Cries for Help:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2/MNGNU7VE1.DTL

If I may say so. If it comes to light that these individuals flung their "slingshot" it will become an eye for an eye.

The tiger is after all a critically endangered animal, on a location where no weapons are permitted.

And infliction of pain, or harrassment of such an animal is capable of resulting in fines and legal penalties that I don't think that any of the people in question are capable of affording. It is a violation of state and federal laws, and international treaties to harrass, injure, or kill such an animal. Not to mention that if it is found that they were performing such actions, it could be at the very least considered a misdemeanor, based on the fact that their actions brought about a life threatening, and life taking situation to themselves and others. I am not completely sure, but it possibly could even be considered manslaughter. And if they have performed such an act, I hope that they feel the full strength of possible legal action.

my two cents.

m.f.

[WooferBearATL]

Tiger Attack Survivors' Attorney Says Zoo Ignored Cries for Help:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2/MNGNU7VE1.DTL

If I may say so. If it comes to light that these individuals flung their "slingshot" it will become an eye for an eye.

The tiger is after all a critically endangered animal, on a location where no weapons are permitted.

And infliction of pain, or harrassment of such an animal is capable of resulting in fines and legal penalties that I don't think that any of the people in question are capable of affording. It is a violation of state and federal laws, and international treaties to harrass, injure, or kill such an animal. Not to mention that if it is found that they were performing such actions, it could be at the very least considered a misdemeanor, based on the fact that their actions brought about a life threatening, and life taking situation to themselves and others. I am not completely sure, but it possibly could even be considered manslaughter. And if they have performed such an act, I hope that they feel the full strength of possible legal action.

my two cents.

m.f.

It actually is not an eye for an eye. Rest assured that there will be a pay out and that the zoo/liability carrier will pay some portion. There certainly will be made a case that the zoo did not do everything within reason to protect the patrons. Depending on how the facts play out, the surviving individuals could reep several thousand to several hundred thousand dollars. For right or wrong, that's simply the way it is.

[marlfox_21]

Tiger Attack Survivors' Attorney Says Zoo Ignored Cries for Help:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2/MNGNU7VE1.DTL

If I may say so. If it comes to light that these individuals flung their "slingshot" it will become an eye for an eye.

The tiger is after all a critically endangered animal, on a location where no weapons are permitted.

And infliction of pain, or harrassment of such an animal is capable of resulting in fines and legal penalties that I don't think that any of the people in question are capable of affording. It is a violation of state and federal laws, and international treaties to harrass, injure, or kill such an animal. Not to mention that if it is found that they were performing such actions, it could be at the very least considered a misdemeanor, based on the fact that their actions brought about a life threatening, and life taking situation to themselves and others. I am not completely sure, but it possibly could even be considered manslaughter. And if they have performed such an act, I hope that they feel the full strength of possible legal action.

my two cents.

m.f.

It actually is not an eye for an eye. Rest assured that there will be a pay out and that the zoo/liability carrier will pay some portion. There certainly will be made a case that the zoo did not do everything within reason to protect the patrons. Depending on how the facts play out, the surviving individuals could reep several thousand to several hundred thousand dollars. For right or wrong, that's simply the way it is.

Actually, it is. There is more evidence against the two surviving boys than there will ever be against the zoo. If they were not involved in disorderly conduct, the event probably would have never happened. A zoo official, just recently said ( in an article released today ) that any statements made by the boys attorney are "unreliable" based on the fact that the San Francisco Police Department has not even finished their investigation yet. And zoo's do perform every reasonable procedure to protect any of their patrons. These boys and their attorneys will try everything that they can think of to stay out of trouble, but if it can be proven that they were harrassing the animal, the best that they will probably be able to hope for are medical bills being paid for. The reality of the seriousness of the charges that could be pressed against them is overwhelming. I cannot stretch how much evidence can be used against them. But I will start with all of the educated Experts who will testify that this animal probably would not take such an action without provacation. This is a common sense statement. But the A.Z.A. facilities are taking every action possible to ensure the strongest percentage of not having a chance of a repeat.

I respect you Wooferbear, but my knowledge of the rising situation is academic.

This is my speciality. This is my passion, it is my career, it is my life.

And I have to believe that I am good at it. These impossible situations are planned for. And possible courses of action are also planned. I am sure that the zoo is going to very patient before making any final determinations. And only after the city's police investigation is complete ( which is likely to take a while ) will they decide how to respond. Unlike the boys attorney, who in a desperate plea for money, is already making claims in what sounds like a desperate attempt to make the boys sound like they are saints, and did no wrong.

When you are majoring in Zoology at a major Universtiy, and you take courses in Zoological Park Management, and Animal Law these types of situations come into play as a real life scenario. All of which are based on state, federal, international laws, and international treaties ( there are some serious ones ) In some cases, the violation becomes more serious based on where the animal is, on private property, in a zoo, from county to county, city to city, township to township, local zoning codes, etc. And situations like this are imagined, and planned through.

However, up until now, this has never happened before. So the actions have never been put into play. At least not for real. I hope that I am making sense. My point is to just be patient. As said in the statement above, depending on how things play out, this could be a very interesting case. Or it could almost become one sided. The boys in question, however, do not have the most favorable background. Public Intoxication, D.U.I.'s, previous arrests, I could go on, I just can't remember it all. But I know that there is a list. There empty bottle of vodka, and Sling Shot in this case certainly do not help them any.

But, with today's judicial system, anything is possible. But in all reality, do not expect for these boys to not face serious charges, if they harrassed the animal in any way.

m.f.

[WooferBearATL]

Actually, it is. There is more evidence against the two surviving boys than there will ever be against the zoo. If they were not involved in disorderly conduct, the event probably would have never happened. A zoo official, just recently said ( in an article released today ) that any statements made by the boys attorney are "unreliable" based on the fact that the San Francisco Police Department has not even finished their investigation yet. And zoo's do perform every reasonable procedure to protect any of their patrons. These boys and their attorneys will try everything that they can think of to stay out of trouble, but if it can be proven that they were harrassing the animal, the best that they will probably be able to hope for are medical bills being paid for. The reality of the seriousness of the charges that could be pressed against them is overwhelming. I cannot stretch how much evidence can be used against them. But I will start with all of the educated Experts who will testify that this animal probably would not take such an action without provacation. This is a common sense statement. But the A.Z.A. facilities are taking every action possible to ensure the strongest percentage of not having a chance of a repeat.

I respect you Wooferbear, but my knowledge of the rising situation is academic.

This is my speciality. This is my passion, it is my career, it is my life.

And I have to believe that I am good at it. These impossible situations are planned for. And possible courses of action are also planned. I am sure that the zoo is going to very patient before making any final determinations. And only after the city's police investigation is complete ( which is likely to take a while ) will they decide how to respond. Unlike the boys attorney, who in a desperate plea for money, is already making claims in what sounds like a desperate attempt to make the boys sound like they are saints, and did no wrong.

When you are majoring in Zoology at a major Universtiy, and you take courses in Zoological Park Management, and Animal Law these types of situations come into play as a real life scenario. All of which are based on state, federal, international laws, and international treaties ( there are some serious ones ) In some cases, the violation becomes more serious based on where the animal is, on private property, in a zoo, from county to county, city to city, township to township, local zoning codes, etc. And situations like this are imagined, and planned through.

However, up until now, this has never happened before. So the actions have never been put into play. At least not for real. I hope that I am making sense. My point is to just be patient. As said in the statement above, depending on how things play out, this could be a very interesting case. Or it could almost become one sided. The boys in question, however, do not have the most favorable background. Public Intoxication, D.U.I.'s, previous arrests, I could go on, I just can't remember it all. But I know that there is a list. There empty bottle of vodka, and Sling Shot in this case certainly do not help them any.

But, with today's judicial system, anything is possible. But in all reality, do not expect for these boys to not face serious charges, if they harrassed the animal in any way.

m.f.

With all due respect, analyzing risk and liability is what I do all day long.

Plaintiff's Attorney will like ask that information of prior offenses be supressed, and this will likely be granted.

These issues are all handled by attorney's, courts and claims representatives.

What you are explaining is theory where what I am explaining is what will most likely happen.

Certainly the plaintiffs may face charges of their own but that does not limit civil actions that will be filed against the zoo.

I think that Interp will back me up on this as well.

[Avatar]

Unfortunately I think Woofer’s explanation will probably be the way this case turns out, but I can only hope that if these young men caused all this that the jury either awards them only $1.00 or a larger amount but subtracts out enough to cover the cost of the tiger, investigative fess and losses to the Zoo then after alls paid they could split the last $1.00 between them and their lawyer.

[The Interpreter]

The sad thing is this...even if the brothers provoked the tiger attack, such an act in a public zoo is foreseeable. If the AZA has set a standard for enclosure height, and is the recognized authority that it is, the zoo not having a wall of such height may well have allowed the attack on the boys to happen...yes, the provocation was the immediate cause, if there was one; but it was foreseeable that such a provocation could happen. The mere fact that the tiger could and did escape would be evidence that the zoo failed to meet a duty to protect its own guests, even when said guests act stupidly or provoke wilde beasts.

The boys' past criminal records will not be relevant to whether or not the zoo was negligent. At best, their behavior may be a contributing factor to be considered under the doctrine of comparative negligence (California was a leading jurisdiction in establishing this doctrine.) Once upon a time, and under the common law, if the plaintiff AT ALL caused their injuries, they were contributorily negligent and could not recover at all as a matter of law. Those days are long gone. Now, at most, any recovery they would otherwise receive could be reduced by the percentage of negligence they are found to have committed.

The criminal offenses committed by the boys, if any there were, are a matter for the criminal courts, not the civil courts, and will be considered separately.

Sadder still, after all this is over, the surviving boys will probably engage an agent, if they have not already, 'write' a book (probably using a ghost writer), and fools will rush in and buy it.

[The Interpreter]

Police examining items for signs tiger was taunted:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/02/tiger.att...ref=mpstoryview

[Cory Butcher]

I guess the bottom line is that the cat should not, under any circumstances, be able to get out of its enclosure whether provoked or not. That being said, hopefully the courts will notice that this cat would not have under any other circumstances got out of its enclosure without being provoked to do so, as no other incident had happened prior.

In the civil court I hope the zoo pays for the boys care, however, I do hope they get charged criminally as well for negligent behavior.

Its kind of like a replay in football, I dont think there is conclusive evidence to say that either party was extremely at fault, as both contributed. Therefore no one party should be punished to the extreme, but both parties should recieve a wake up call. If evidence is pretty inconclusive then both parties should kinof just settle for the already achieved outcome, maybe with a little more punishment in addition. Just nothing too extreme in either case.

[The Interpreter]

IF the boys provoked the tiger, they were guilty of far more than negligence. Negligence is failure to act or to act carefully when one had a duty to act. Provoking a tiger is both stupid and endangers one's self and others, not to mention that Siberian tigers are an endangered species, and provoking one is most probably a violation of federal law.

[WooferBearATL]

And without getting too complicated, California is a Pure Comparative state.

Basically meaning that even if the zoo is only 5% negligent that the Plaintiff can seek damages of 5%.

Where as Ohio is a Modified Comparative State set at 51%. What that basically means is that the party that is negligent of 51% or more is barred from any recovery.

There are actually states (such as Maryland) that are Pure Comparative. What that means is that is a party is even 1% negligent that they are barred from any recover.

LOL, and that is Claims 101 for ya.

[The Interpreter]

Zoo to Reopen After Tiger Attack:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/02/ap4488345.html

[The Interpreter]

And without getting too complicated, California is a Pure Comparative state.

Basically meaning that even if the zoo is only 5% negligent that the Plaintiff can seek damages of 5%.

Where as Ohio is a Modified Comparative State set at 51%. What that basically means is that the party that is negligent of 51% or more is barred from any recovery.

There are actually states (such as Maryland) that are Pure Comparative. What that means is that is a party is even 1% negligent that they are barred from any recover.

LOL, and that is Claims 101 for ya.

I think you meant to say Maryland is pure contributory negligence....

[Guest kwindshawne]

It infuriates me that they may have taunted the cat. Cruelty to any living creature is wrong, and they paid the ultimate price. I had a half wolf dog until he died last year, and you have to keep in mind that wild animals are unpredictable and that if you do something to harm them or cross their natural "rules", they are going to react the way nature intended. Even if they didn't taunt the animal, perhaps the stress of being in a zoo was enough to push the cat over the edge. I had a special bond with wolf, but let me tell you, you stayed far away if he was eating deer meat. After it was consumed, he returned to being dog-like and the most pleasant creature there was.

[WooferBearATL]

And without getting too complicated, California is a Pure Comparative state.

Basically meaning that even if the zoo is only 5% negligent that the Plaintiff can seek damages of 5%.

Where as Ohio is a Modified Comparative State set at 51%. What that basically means is that the party that is negligent of 51% or more is barred from any recovery.

There are actually states (such as Maryland) that are Pure Comparative. What that means is that is a party is even 1% negligent that they are barred from any recover.

LOL, and that is Claims 101 for ya.

I think you meant to say Maryland is pure contributory negligence....

You are right.

LOL, long day at work and all those darn New Years Resolution people taking up the equipment at the gym!

[Browntggrr]

So exactly what are the recommended heights for enclosures from the AZA for?

Protect the people from the animals or protect the animals from the people?

[The Interpreter]

So exactly what are the recommended heights for enclosures from the AZA for?

Protect the people from the animals or protect the animals from the people?

Yes.

[Browntggrr]

^ Saw that one coming.

[The Interpreter]

San Fran Zoo Gets Ready to Reopen (includes video, new information):

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=n...&id=5867281

[The Interpreter]

Yes, this one requires registration (or http://www.bugmenot.com ). Yes, it is worth it:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci...?nclick_check=1

San Fran Tiger Attack Story Turning Into Circus

Includes a discussion of potential legal liability (very close to what has been discussed here, by the way)

[Cory Butcher]

My, personal favorite lines from the news article:

If they just stood there and said, 'nah nah nah nah nah nah, you're a lousy tiger,' that would be one thing," Keane said. "The taunting itself would have to be some kind of conduct that a reasonable person would know would be dangerous, like going up on top of the fense and trying to lure the thing out. It would have to be more than throwing peanut shells at the tiger."

The whole "'nah nah nah nah nah nah, you're a lousy tiger" part just makes me smile, lol

In other news, when I logged onto Mercury News using Bugmenot.com, the page at the top says, "Welcome, Uliqa Mabalz".

[The Interpreter]

San Fran Zoo Visitor Saw Two Victims of Tiger Attack Teasing Lions:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...3/MN9TU8AGC.DTL

[Cory Butcher]

I was watching the nightly news on Fox 45 here, last night after the bowl game ended, and they said the Police are currently investigating a large rock and tree branch found in the enclosure. I suppose this certain rock and branch werent supposed to be there, because you do usually as hard as it is to believe, find those things in animal enclosures from time to time!

[KIBeast]

I appreciate the linked articles, Interpreter. However, many here are taking these as facts of the case and nothing has been proven one way or the other. There are a lot of suspected scenarios, but nothing has come out as factual just yet. So, let's keep this all in mind when some of you aroud here have already tried and convicted the injured parties in question. I have heard all of these things about the two boys supposedly being drunk or carrying slingshots. Nothing is fact only speculation. Let's wait until we get the whole story before we just jump on the latest bandwagon of alleged evidence.

[The Interpreter]

Well, there ARE some facts here. Among them:

* The zoo had a tiger.

* The zoo had a wall that was shorter than industry standards.

* The tiger escaped, mauled three boys, one fatally.

* The San Francisco police killed the tiger, which was apparently engaged in the act of mauling one of the three boys at the time.

* The tiger was a Siberian tiger, an endangered species.

* The two survivors have had no public comment about what, if anything, they did or did not do to provoke the incident.

* The two survivors have engaged a noted torts attorney in order to do something.

* The zoo has hired a publicist to spin its story.

* The San Francisco police are investigating. They are a unit of the City of San Francisco, which in turn operates the zoo.

[RedBoneZilla]

Ok just seen this yes i have not been home for alittle bit to watch the news.When me and the family go to the zoo we dont go there to taunt tigers and allt hat.What ever happened to just going and taking a few pics of tigers bears and other animals?

[KIBeast]

Again, there is not any fact to back that up. It's purely specualtion at this point.

I hope you didn't think I was picking on you, Interpreter. I really do appreciate the links to the articles. But, the general populous is jumping all over these articles as if this has all been established as fact.

[Cory Butcher]

Have we been? I know all of my posts have consisted of "If, then" scenarios. And most others I have read, read the same.

I do see what you are trying to avoid KIBeast, but we both know most of the people on this forum don't accept things without proof, and frame their arguments and ideas well, so I don't think we have to worry too much!