Thus shines a good deed in a weary world:ÂÂ
One of the two survivors of the San Francisco Zoo tiger attack that left a 17-year-old dead told the victim’s father that the three had yelled and waved at the animal while standing atop the railing of the tiger’s exhibit, police said in court documents filed Thursday.
Paul Dhaliwal, 19, denied throwing anything into the enclosure or otherwise antagonizing the animal, according to an account contained in police investigators’ request for a search warrant in connection with the Christmas Day attack that killed Carlos Sousa Jr. of San Jose.
The kid didn’t have to cop to having taunted the animal, and the father of the dead boy didn’t have to share the information. I’m sure their lawyers would rather they hadn’t.
Now it can be a healing tragedy, rather than a soul-rotting farce.
This is at least like the second tiger mauling during the Bush presidency, and this time people died. What will it take for you people to see?
Vampire mirrors, I guess.
FWIW, this won’t get the zoo off the liability hook. California is a comparative negligence state.
Contributary nefligence, ie. messing with a dangerous animal, when the zoo knew the enclosure wasn’t secure, and the tiger very bitey, won’t bar recovery.
Yeah, I know, Sarah, but it will make it harder for the public place the blame completely on the zoo.
I’m an attorney, though not a personal injury attorney – but I have got to think that the reasonable standard for tiger enclosures must not rely so much upon the tiger’s presumed lack of motivation to leave the enclosure.
“Totally effective at containing tigers which are content to stay within the enclosure because no one is taunting them” does not a true tiger enclosure make.
No, Alec, and the head zookeeper announced earlier that the enclosure wasn’t up to recommended spec, so I’m not letting the zoo off the hook, either.
It may well put a ding in any verdict – they’d reduce it by the percentage of contributory negligence on the part of the of the teenagers . But here is why a jury ( assuming this ever went to trial) would hold the zoo’s feet to the fire – the zoo is open to the general public.
Taunting of animals in a zoo setting is foreseeable on the part of the zoo. The zoo knew not only that the enclosure was below standard, but that it was not sufficient to contain the tiger they actually kept. The entire inivited public and the employees, therefore, were placed in danger, and but for the zoo’s failure to secure a wild and dangerous animal, not only would the teens not have been hurt, but other total innocents may have been.
Compounding this failure was the, (at first glance, anyway) inadequate response when an attack was announced by the frantic teenagers. This extended the time the of danger to not only the bad boys, but the public. People may think “well, play with tigers, and get gnawed, but when instructed to think on it, will find the zoo liable. Because the zoo created a foreseeable dangerous condition – the escape as it occurred ( tiger leaping over intact enclosure) should have been impossible, and would have been, if the zoo had corrected an (internally within the zoo organization) known unsafe condition.
That could have easily been some two-year-old in a stroller with his neck torn.
As horrific as the details of this story are there’s black humor here.. Every time I picture this event I see that old cartoon cat Tom taunting the bigass bulldog, secure in the belief that the bulldog is at the end of his rope and cant get to him… Then after laughing his ass off he realizes the bulldog has untied his rope (or somesuch) and that a mauling is only moments away… I bet these guys felt like that when the Tiger deftly leaped up on top of that wall..
“No, Alec, and the head zookeeper announced earlier that the enclosure wasn’t up to recommended spec, so I’m not letting the zoo off the hook, either.”
Several years of experience have led me to a few simple truths, many of which inform my political and ideological persuasions.
One is – sometimes, there are no heroes.
Just because the pencildicks taunted the tiger does not mean that they should have died, and the zoo relieved of responsibility for maintaining a substandard enclosure. Likewise, just because pencildicks taunted the tiger, does not mean that the zoo should not be held responsible for maintaining a substandard enclosure.
This is one of those cases in which you pine for some theory of civil liability to punish the zoo that would not benefit the surviving plaintiffs.
Good on him for fessing up, though, as most people these days would have claimed that the tiger was, in fact, taunting them.
The main thing it does for me is move my sympathies from the victim to the tiger. The tiger was just doing what a tiger does, and I am a bit saddened that the people who were responsible for him dropped the ball so badly. I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who would get drunk and taunt an 8 ft. long tiger from atop a 12 ft. wall, however. I suspect things are not going to turn out good for them, and I just hope they don’t take anyone with them when they go.
I think they’d dispute that point, Sarah. You can say that they should have known, but I think it’s safe to say they were stupefied by the leap that the tiger must have made.
Undoubtedly, and especially after the tiger mauled a handler earlier, they should have taken care of the enclosure, since they knew it didn’t meet guidelines. What’s important here, to my mind, is not the amount of the verdict, if it’s brought to trial, or of the settlement if it’s not, but the fact that knowing it would reduce the amount, the father of the boy who was killed nevertheless sought and then shared the truth of the matter. And that integrity is beyond any lawyering, and unfortunately, could be in much greater supply.
That’s all I’m trying to say.
He fessed up simply because they had evidence of it. The families has been less than accommodating, refusing to cooperate with police until the warrants were served.
And about the zoo, not only was the enclosure not up to specs, their response was atrocious. Sad to say, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for any party in this.
Note to self: Tigers can jump. Really high:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsD4h9IBGZs
FWIW, Dan, I think pure comparative negligence rules have really screwed up tort litigation, and that Virginia’s traditional, strict contributory negligence rule has the happy effect of making sure only innocents recover, A return to that higher standard nationwide would go a long way to ending what many percieve as abuse of the tort system requiring reform.
Dan, it apparently was an open organizational secret – the zoo knew the enclosure was too short for the tiger.
I guess I should clarify – the zoo knew the enclosure was breachable by an aggressive tiger, the zoo knew the teen-tasting tiger was very aggressive and strong, and the zoo also knew it’s enclosure was fell short of recommended standards.
The zoo did not solve the enclosure problems it has known about for many, many years.
“I guess I should clarify – the zoo knew the enclosure was breachable by an aggressive tiger, the zoo knew the teen-tasting tiger was very aggressive and strong, and the zoo also knew it’s enclosure was fell short of recommended standards.â€Â
Actually, Sarah, IIRC, the tiger in question was a juvenile female tiger of about 300 lbs – perhaps more agile (I’m no tiger expert) – but also perhaps not at the upper end of the tiger weight/strength scale (mature males in the 700 lbs + category). That means, to me at least, that this was not the case of an unforeseeably athletic tiger – and in fact she may have been a rather ordinary tiger, making the zoo’s negligence more clear. Now, if a tiger sprouted wings and flew out of its enclosure – in that case, we would say “wow, what a freak accident.†In this case, the tiger simply performed to the level of tiger athleticism known in the tiger keeping-and-studying world. Hence, the recommendation of a 12’ wall/fence.
“Just because the pencildicks taunted the tiger does not mean that they should have died”
Sure it does. I’m pretty sure that law predates any written human law…
Unfortunately, two of them are still with us and about to make a fortune off their own arrogance.
Their tops are made out of rubber
Their bottoms are made out of springs!
They’re bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!
except for when they’re bitey
“Sad to say, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for any party in this.”
I do, for the tiger. That said, I don’t blame the cops for shooting it. What the hell else can anyone do in that situation?
Take three pencil dicks – add alcohol, weed, tiger taunting – how many people are surprised something bad might happen? C’mon, raise your hands.
I tried to find a good “jumping tiger” vid, and couldn’t. They all look like the tigers are bored and barely trying.
I’ve seen a full-grown tiger jump “in anger” and it was a lot like a housecat, except 20 times bigger and much scarier. It’s a hard animal to contain.
The Zoo was partly to blame, but I’m not sure I can say they’re “mind-bogglingly stupid” like the Taunters. 60/40 or 70/30.
I think the official figures are 16 ft vertical and 30+ feet horizontal for an adult tiger leap.
“Just because the pencildicks taunted the tiger does not mean that they should have diedâ€Â
Sure it does. I’m pretty sure that law predates any written human law…
Word.
I think the surviving taunters medical bills should be covered plus $50K. They will mostly recover. The family of the dead boy didn’t particularly contribute to the tragedy except perhaps by shoddy parenting but who can tell. They deserve some compensation. I suggest that the two surviving taunters should each owe $75K for their role in the lad’s death and the zoo should be liable for somewhat more on account of the fact that they profited from keeping a dangerous animal which was inadequately secured. Say, another $150K from the zoo. Then the families of the dead kid should be required to purchase air time on a local TV station and run PSAs that say “don’t fuck with the animals”. More or less.
Unfortunately arrogant people like yourself make idiotic statements concerning the supposed arrogance of others. The penalty for taunting zoo animals isn’t death, you prick.
“The penalty for taunting zoo animals isn’t death, you prick.”
That depends on who catches you first, the lady or the tiger.
In Iran though death is the penalty for taunting a prick so, it gets nuancey is all I’m saying.