San Francisco Denies Claims Filed by Tiger Attack Victims

May 12, 2008

  • May 12, 2008 at 7:25 am
    Uncle Hal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is basically a case of strict liability and, from just the bit that I have read, the Zoological Society sounds like the most likely proper party to respond to the claim.

  • May 12, 2008 at 2:54 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As I recall, these young men were drunk, taunting the tiger, and possibly even standing on the wall around the enclosure. In addition, in the initial investigation into the incident, they lied about it. Even when one of their friends died in the encounter, they still couldn’t tell the truth.

    They will try to make something out of the height of the wall, but gee, how many years was it that way without an incident?

  • May 12, 2008 at 3:02 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You rememberMark Geragos, one of the slime bags who represented O.J. He’s found another bag of garbage to try and turn into gold. The plaintiffs are adults and their reported behaviors directly caused the animal to attack. They should not be rewarded for their poor judgement and stupidity. The fact that had been no prior incidents speaks volumes about this case. The only intervening factor was the conduct of the three idiots.

  • May 12, 2008 at 4:17 am
    Adjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Guess what? The tiger should not have gotten out of its enclosure no matter what was done to it. Also; the “taunting” and “drunk” claims were mere rumors and not even the police report in the matter supported them.

    This just says the CITY is not liable; likely they didn’t have direct control over the enclosure’s maintenance, design or repair. The other entities are going to pay big bucks. And rightfully so. Get off your “insurance” high horses and get a conscience! This is not a couple of doufs who hired the ambulance chaser on the phone book, who sent them to his favorite chiroquaker.

  • May 12, 2008 at 4:23 am
    Just a thought says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Adjuster is correct. These young men should have their day in court. If it is found that they provoked the tiger and caused it to kill, then maybe the zoo should sue them, for the loss of one tiger. Or maybe they could sue on behalf of the tigers spouse for wrongful death. Hey stranger things have been tried.

  • May 12, 2008 at 4:34 am
    SF Native says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Let me see, the zoo is what 50 years old, I’ve been there dozens of times. No one I know would ever even think of teasing anything that can run faster than me, has bigger teeth, and eats meat. I don’t care how high the wall is or isn’t, TIGERS ARE DANGEROUS, and still scare the crap out of me! What kind of fool would even try to get their attention. When will stupidity stop being rewarded. I know they were injured, but like the prior post mentions, how many times has this happened before? It takes two recent products of public education to try this stunt.

  • May 12, 2008 at 6:34 am
    Punks says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I too, live in SF, have been to zoo numerous times, etc. since I was a youngster. The Tigers were never a threat. Now a group of doped up drunk punks (both survivors have criminal records, one just got arrested for stealing video game controllers at Target)
    taunt the tigers and all hell breaks loose.
    The only thing bad about this incident was that a beautiful tiger was shot to death. I hope the surviving punks % their slime ball attorneys get nothing.

  • May 13, 2008 at 8:48 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree 100% with Kudos and SF Native. With all due respect to Adjuster’s liability opinion, I disagree completely. Without negligence there is no liability. 50 years without an incident is a powerful precedent to indicate precautions were appropriate. Animal experts have testified that this was an unbelievable feat by this animal to jump the moat and the wall, and that something extraordinary must have prompted it. This was beyond the realm of foreseeability. If the Zoo is fortunate enough to find a judge and jury with half a brain, they’ll award each of the plaintiff’s $1.00.

  • May 13, 2008 at 11:21 am
    "Punks" says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To “Dread”,
    Your comments were perfect, thank you for nailing it right on the head!!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*