Replies

This is not hard to understand. If your chain is not strong enough to hold your rottweiller, you are to blame. If the prison's walls are not high enough to contain an enraged prisoner, then the prison is to blame. If the zoo's tiger enclosure does not keep the tiger inside, then the zoo is to blame.

Interesting point of view but what if an intruder breaks into my home and my Rottie seriously wounds or kills them; am I responsible for not doing enough to keep the intruder from breaking into my home in the first place?

If a prison takes all reasonable precautions and safeguards to contain a violent offender but said offender still finds some way of escaping anyway, then you are saying that it’s the prison’s fault alone and that the escapee is not responsible for his actions?

If I were a juror, given the facts known at this time, I would have to consider:

1) There was a shoe found in the moat “inside” the enclosure indicating that at least one of the three had gone past the visitor’s barrier and placed a leg inside the enclosure.

2) The surviving two were uncooperative with the police.

3) They were found to have had sling shots in their possession – not exactly standard gear for a nice leisurely trip to the zoo and demonstrates a premeditation on their part.

4) If the enclosure was so inadequate and the tiger, so extremely aggressive, then why wasn’t the tiger jumping out on a regular basis?

5) Did the zoo pass previous safety inspections? Where they compliant?

6) Did the zoo have signs and warnings posted saying not to taunt the animals or enter past a certain point and not to place body parts inside the enclosure?

7) Did the zoo’s ticket stub have a “limited liability statement” printed on it? A lot of public venues like theme parks and sports stadiums have them in order to protect themselves from lawsuits by people knowingly engaging in stupid and dangerous behaviors.

In civil law there is a legal precept called “contributory negligence”. It basically says that the party being sued is in some part negligent but that the complainant’s actions were so out of the norm and equally negligent, thus ending in a legal draw.

So far I’m leaning toward “contributory negligence”. The three “youts” were old enough to know better and most likely did not follow the posted rules and intentionally provoked a dangerous animal to attack them.

How much do any of you want to make a bet that one of the three guys was filming the event on a cell phone camera with hopes of being the next “Jackass” or YouTube video star.

If so, they got their wish, they got their 15 minutes of fame. And one of them died for it.

If a prison takes all reasonable precautions and safeguards to contain a violent offender

The zoo DID NOT take all reasonably precautions to contain the animal.

The zoos walls were 4 feet below recommendations.

The zoo was warned in the 60's that a tiger was endanger of escaping so they filled the moat with water to make it harder for it to escape. When that tiger died. They drained the moat.

Ten years ago, a woman and her 3 year old son had a close call with a tiger nearly jumping out of this same enclosure. The zoo did nothing.

There was a shoe found in the moat “inside” the enclosure

Police have recanted. All of the victims shoes were accounted for. There was NO shoe in the moat.

Did the zoo have signs and warnings posted saying not to taunt the animals

Does a "Do Not Lean On The Glass" sign substitute for safety glass at the alligator farm? "This glass is plenty strong as long as people don't tap on it."

Did the zoo’s ticket stub have a “limited liability statement” printed on it?

Limited liability statements do not absolve negligence on the part of people entrusted to protect the public. If your family was on a plane that crashed after it ran out of gas, how much comfort would you take from their disclaimer, "There are risks in flying. All people assume full responsibility for their own safety."

Did the zoo have signs and warnings

I am sure that installing a "Do Not Taunt The Tiger" signs was definitely cheaper than upgrading the enclosure to current safety recommendations. But you can see how effective it was.

In civil law there is a legal precept called “contributory negligence”.

The two main culprits are the zoo and the accrediting organization. As far as I am concerned, they can share equally in 80 percent of the multimillion dollar figment.