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.
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 :)