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.
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.
So since the 1960’s no tiger actually ever escaped despite the presumption that the wall was 4 feet too low for over 40 years. One “close call” ten years ago and “nearly” does not constitute an attack or a history on the zoo’s part of reckless endangerment.
Police have recanted. All of the victims shoes were accounted for. There was NO shoe in the moat.
But the police are investigating a shoe print:
Shoe print may hold clue to zoo tiger escape
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."
Of course one would reasonably presume that the glass would not shatter if I merely tapped on it, but what is my responsibility as a patron of this establishment to follow the rules? If the sign says "Do Not Lean On The Glass" it means what it says. If I go to an alligator farm I do so with the understanding that these are very real and potentially dangerous animals and if I don’t follow the instructions posted for my safety, then am I without culpability if I choose to ignore the rules?
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."
If I’m on an airplane and the plan crashes after running out of gas, I am in no way responsible for that sort of negligence as I had no part in or control of that situation. But if I’m on a plane and I get up during the flight and attempt to open the emergency hatch –who is to blame then?
If I go to an amusement park and ride the roller coaster and I’m given clear instructions not to attempt to disable the restraints while the ride is in motion and to keep my arms and legs inside the ride but instead I ignore the rules and I jimmy the restraint open anyway and am injured: is it the park’s fault or my own?
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.
It hasn’t yet been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Zoo’s enclosure did not meet safety recommendations. Besides, every zoo or aquarium I’ve every visited has signs with instructions not to throw things into the enclosure, not to go past a certain point for your own safety and not to yell or purposely taunt the animals. Sign may be cheap but they are there for a purpose.
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.
So you are saying these guys, even if they failed to follow the rules and taunted the tiger into attacking them, possibly with sling shots, bear no responsibility at all for their actions and are entitled to a multi-million dollar settlement?