Posted on 01/05/2008 4:26:41 AM PST by repinwi
Soon after their 17-year-old friend was mauled to death by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo, the two brothers who survived the attack made a quick pact not to cooperate with the police as they rode in an ambulance to the hospital, sources told The Chronicle.
"Don't tell them what we did," paramedics heard 23-year-old Kulbir Dhaliwal tell his brother, Paul, 19.
Sources also say that the younger brother was intoxicated at the time of the incident, having used marijuana and consumed enough liquor to have a blood-alcohol level above the .08 limit for adult drivers. The older brother also had been drinking and using marijuana around the time a 350-pound Siberian tiger escaped and killed Carlos Sousa Jr., the sources said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“I don’t believe for one minute that the zoo just told the AZA the height and it received the stamp of approval.”
You don’t believe someone somewhere was too lazy to do the measurement themselves?
That is was easy enough to take the zoo at their word and not bother?
I believe it. There are lazy folks everywhere. Why not at the aza?
The one article, with the eyewitness father and daughter, he clearly stated she faced the cage, though.
I suppose to some extent it may depend on what kind of contract the trainer may have signed at hire. The judge will have to rely on that...if it exists (and I assume, one likely does).
However, if negligence is found on the part of the zoo owners (and she will likely have to cite the OSHA findings and fine) by the Arbitration Commissioner Arlene Borick, who is assigned to this case (and it appears her role in this is as an arbitration judge—which indicates to me that there may well be an employment contract which forced this into arbitration), she would have to look at that, regardless of the “reaching down to pick up the meat outside the cage” in “too close a proximity.”
I’ve been trying to find out some background information on this Borick....no luck so far.
Year after year after year? I guess I would like to think there are responsible people out there. At least 1 out of every 5. I know, I must be living in a dream world.
Yeah, I know. All that reminds me of the “he was such a nice boy....never killed anyone before. It must have been his abusive childhood. Let’s focus on his feelings and how he got this way.”
that makes sense.
If there were clear guideline that the zoo didn’t follow, it should be a clear-cut case.
I’m just imagining myself sitting on a jury thinking to myself...”you picked up a piece of meat? at feeding time? knowing the tiger could reach you?....
But of course...no one is going to call me up and ask for my opinion :)
“Year after year after year?”
well sure!
All you have to do is be lazy one year, and then subsequent years the question is asked....have any changes been made?
And if the answer is “no”...they go with the previous year’s report (regarding the height of the fence).
It would not surprise me to learn no one has managed to actually do their own verification by measuring for themselves - in many many years.
I had to sign an employment contract at a manufacturing company which made poisonous substances. These substances were used in the making of rubber products (like for tires not for holding consumable goods). In my contract, I promised not to divulge their formulas, etc., but also to enter into arbitration should I have been found to have these chemicals within my body. I had to agree, also, to yearly blood tests, beginning upon hire. Signing such an agreement would have prevented me from filing against the company, except through arbitration. It would never have reached any jury.
I think these precautions are taken with companies who are at greater risk of having their employees harmed through their employment. No way to they want a sympathetic jury and be exposed to suits which would bankrupt them or severely impact their financial standing.
“I had to sign an employment contract at a manufacturing company which made poisonous substances. These substances were used in the making of rubber products (like for tires not for holding consumable goods). In my contract, I promised not to divulge their formulas, etc., but also to enter into arbitration should I have been found to have these chemicals within my body. I had to agree, also, to yearly blood tests, beginning upon hire. Signing such an agreement would have prevented me from filing against the company, except through arbitration. It would never have reached any jury.”
yikes!!
Hope everything worked out for you!
Oh, I was fine, always was. I didn’t handle the chemicals, but was around them. This was an excellent company, actually. They religiously measure all chemical levels, airborne and otherwise. I don’t know of anyone who ever became ill, even sick, from working there.
OSHA should have been brought in on that one.
I was thinking here that if the cat could be manacled, like they do people on "reach in and the big thing goes smash on the anvil" jobs, then when the cat reached out to touch/slash/eat the zoo worker, she'd been yanked back out of the way by a large chain.
Just a thought.
lol....looks like at least one lawyer don’t like this Arbitration Judge....claims she’s biased toward plaintiffs.
http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/resultstrial.php?id=965675&which=judge
that is too funny!
wonder who the lawyer was.
I guess he showed her a thing or two!
Whoever it was, sounds like he was...quite angry. : )
She’s probably laughing at that report, though (if she even bothered to read it).
To what level? Solid cement walls 50 feet tall? Are doors allowed, or only ladders?
I suggest you avoid all zoos, none will meet your standards.
Four feet below standards is not meeting the standards. And if four feet higher still allows a tiger to get out, obviously those were also not safe enough standards.
Unless you think the point of caging a wild animal isn’t to keep it caged.
Zoos are a trade-off between keeping to animal in a specific area, away from being able to harm the public.
AND
The public, meanwhile, want to see the animal as closely as possible. Some want to do from the ‘safety’ of their car, others want to touch the animal, even at the risk of minor injury.
All the definitions are always in a certain amount of flux, including the definition of ‘safely’.
No one want to ‘see’ the zoo animal at 100% foolproof zero risk, because that means the 50 foot solid walls I’m talking about may not be enough.
It will be interesting to find out if the AZA ever measured the wall.
But if they did measure it once, I can almost guarantee they did not measure it “every year” as you suggest.
Do the Americans With Disabilities inspectors measure each handicap toilet stall every year?
Probably not.
If the wall was measured, it was done probably once, unless at some point there were modifications that were made.
If the AZA measured the wall they will be in large part liable. If they did not measure it, but simply took the zoos measurements, they will be liable but to a lesser degree.
I’m sorry....were you talking to me? I thought you were looking for that article which you claimed Mr. Sousa had talked with the young punks. Did you locate that yet?
How about we simply require zoos to meet industry standards and keep their walls at the required height?
Did you read my post?
Do you have any idea what “IIRC” means?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.