[Mr. Brightside]

The zoo is responsible for keeping animals, even and especially enraged animals, away from the public.

The zoo failed miserably. If the tiger got out after an earthquake or a tsunami, that would be forgivable.

But they fail to protect their patrons from enraged animals? That could be, and may be, considered criminal negligence.

The zoo was arrongant enough to try and handle the situation themselves, keeping armed police oficers outside the zoo for six minutes before they were allowed to come in and ultimately rescue one of the brothers.

The wall was too low. They had many reports over 40 years of tigers jumping the moat. They delayed the police rescue of a victim.

The zoo will pay big and some of the officials may even have charges filed against them.

[Caramelgal]

The zoo will pay big and some of the officials may even have charges filed against them.

Perhaps you are right but then shouldn't the two survivors, if it is proven that they shot the tiger with sling shots and didn’t follow the rules also have charges filed against them?

[Cvengr]

I agree that multiple liabilities exist.

I wonder if the slingshots were a type liberal 'throw-down' weapons. ;^)