The Dhaliwal brothers prefer to have attorney Mark Geragos do the talking, greatly frustrating investigators trying to reconstruct what happened in the zoo mauling. (Jaxon Van Derbeken, “In ambulance, survivors of S.F. tiger attack made pact of silence”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 5; “San Francisco Authorities Seek to Inspect Tiger Attack Victims’ Cell Phones”, AP/FoxNews.com, Jan. 5; Patricia Yollin, Tanya Schevitz, Kevin Fagan, “S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 3; Jacob Sullum, “The Buck Keeps Moving”, syndicated/Reason, Jan. 2). Earlier: Jan. 3.
17 Comments
The issue of teasing or taunting the tiger seems strange to look into. Every visitor to the zoo was taunting the tiger. The tiger sees us, all of us, as food. The fact that we shout, make funny faces, etc., does not make a difference. I want to eat the burger because it is a burger. What is the legal significance of this? The zoo may be liable if its wall was too short. It is not a defense to say the visitors were making fun of the tiger.
Not everyone teases tigers when they go to the zoo, and tigers generally don’t look to humans as food. But yojoe does raise an interesting point about teasing. The zoo has a duty to keep visitors safe from the animals, if someone whould try to enter an animal pen, that is one thing, but even if these men were dousing themselves in steak sauce, teasing and taunting the animals, how does that play in regards to the zoo’s defence? The tiger shouldn’t be able to escape from its pen, even if you are a jackass.
If they made this pact of theirs in the ambulance, immediately after the attack, it might well have been motivated by shame at having got their friend killed. It would have been too early at that pt to be thinking about lawsuits, not with visions of an attacking tiger still fresh in their heads.
Yes, a tiger loose in the zoo seems like res ipsa loquitur to me. These guys may indeed be drunks and jerks, but if the tiger was capable of jumping over the wall at them, then it could have jumped at any time, and the zoo was just lucky that there wasn’t a kindergarten class trip there when it did.
Given the zoo’s record of misstatements about the wall height and its insistence on spreading unsubstantiated rumors about the victims (i.e., the slingshots), the zoo doesn’t look at all committed to reaching the truth of this matter either. Given how clear its liability seems to be, I suppose attack-the-victims is the best legal tactic available to them, but it’s deplorable nonetheless.
Did anyone see that the zoo keeper was the same zoo keeper who was responsible for Sharon Stone’s ex-husband being bitten by a Komodo dragon?
http://celebritycity.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-scummy-awards-top-10-list-of-sex.html
Not a good track record. Also good fodder for a deposition.
Do you think it will matter if they worked the animals into a complete frenzy? I don’t; bet you a 10-spot they get more that 3 million each.
“Don’t tell them what we did,” paramedics heard 23-year-old Kulbir Dhaliwal tell his brother, Paul, 19.
While the finger waggs point at the docs for breaches of confidentiality, it is really the slew of paraprofessionals, clerks, and service workers who outnumber docs 20 to 1 that blab too much. They might be protected from civil action by not having sufficient financial resources to bother with, but their deep pocket employers might suffer.
nevins,
While I think that the youth have a right to their medical records being kept confidential, why should this extend to non-medical info? If I am being treated fo a knife wounds and comment,”at least the XXXX won’t be messing with my wife anymore!” is that also to be kept private?
Too many posters seem intent on excusing these drunken, uncooperative jerks. They’re thinking like little children, meaning that if they do something wrong, there should be an “adult” around who gets the blame and pays. I didn’t get fat because I pig out at MacDonalds. They made me eat their food. I didn’t get drunk and wreck my car. That bartender made me drink too much. Yeah, I taunted that tiger, but the fence should have been higher. And so on.
They shouldn’t bother. These two drunks’ behavior not only means they’re at least as much at fault for this as the zoo, they weren’t hurt any more than they’d have been in a moderately bad car accident. If they get the zoo to cover their medical expenses, they should consider themselves fortunate.
The dead guy is a different matter. According to the witness who is talking, he wasn’t taunting the tiger. His only failing was having such stupid friends. He is dead because the zoo had a wall that was several feet below safety standards and because those friends were idiots. His family has grounds to sue both the zoo and these two jerks.
Everything I’ve heard or read says that the zoo’s wall didn’t meet the RECOMMENDED standards. I haven’t heard anything about a law being broken.
Well, if the tiger got out by climbing up the dangling leg that was allegedly in the cage then the height of the wall is moot.
Also, the fact that no other tiger escaped until this incident pretty much devalues the whole crybaby “wall is not tall enough” braying
“breaches of confidentiality”
There is no duty to keep confidential something overheard. The speaker did not give that information to a medical professional (or para). He made statements in the presense of a third party – no way to keep something confidential.
“that no other tiger escaped until this … devalues … “wall is not tall enough” braying”
How so? If my son doesn’t open the undersink cabinet and drink bleach until he is four years old, does that somehow mean the bleach in the unlocked cabinet has always been adequately secured?
Where all circumstances are unchanged “It never happened before” means exactly the same as “It could have happened any time.”
As we all know, it does not matter if the zoo had met or even exceeded all safety standards.
The comments about the wall seem to miss the point I was trying to make, to wit: every person in the zoo was taunting the tiger. The zoo knows that tigers would like to eat humans. Thus, the zoo must build an enclosure to keep the tiger from eating the humans.
These comments are inapposite if the men did something to aid the tiger in its escape. But taunting is not enough. I ate toast today. I did not choose the piece of bread because it taunted me; I chose it because it is a food source.
I think we got your point, but we may have disagreed with your equation of tempting with taunting.
It seems like this would be perfect opportunity for the civil version of nullification. I, for one, would have the attitude of “you teased a tiger and you got mauled…Jungle Justice was served. Go home now.” Although this might be more likely in a situation involving animals, it would still mean a jury striking a blow for personal responsibility…Oh well, a man can dream.
Isn’t keeping wild animals, especially tigers, the classic example used to describe strict liability? The zoo keeps wild animals, the animals get loose, cause an injury, then the zoo is liable no matter how much care was taken to confine the animals. It does not matter what they did to provoke the tiger, the zoo will be liable. I can’t believe i just wasted two minutes of reading time explaining this, time to get back to torts . . . .
[…] Watch out getting into a fight with a crisis management specialist, they have sharp tongues. (John Coté, “Tiger attack victims file suit in federal court”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 13; more Chronicle coverage; earlier). […]