I'm not talking about redneck owners or little girls. My example used the same circumstances. Three drunk guys torturing a dog with sling shots from across a fence which has always contained a dog before. If you'd place all the responsibility on the owner, you don't believe in the concept of personal responsibility at all.
As I said. The zoo gets 50% of the blame because the tiger could get out (even though it never had before) and because it's a public facility that should do what it can to protect its visitors. The men get 50% of the blame because their attack on the animal drove it out by deliberately hurting and enraging it.
You are at 50-50.
I am 80-20. 80 percent zoo/accrediting organization and 20 percent boys IF it can be proven they were taunting the tiger.
But my position is that if I am taking my family to the zoo, I want the tiger locked up even if there are boys taunting it.
Keep the tiger away from my family. No excuses. Period.