Tiger Attack

[Zana]

I dont know how many of you heard of (or follow) this story, but it involves the recent tiger attack which killed a visitor to a zoo. One of the issues raised was that the zoo is at fault for not properly designing an enclosure that would keep the animals at a safe distance. An opposing issue is that the investigation revealed that the individual violated clearly posted zoo safety rules and was taunting the tiger. His dusty shoe footprints were found on the rail of the enclosure inside of the 'keep out' area and his friends admitted that they had been yelling and throwing things at the tiger. The family is, of course, sueing the city.

The thing that made me want to post the thread: Recently the coroner in this case released in his report that the victim also had alcohol and marijauna in his system at the time of the attack.

Really? Does it matter? I feel the only reason to release this completely irrelevant information would be to try and bias any potential jurors in the case. The idea, "He was drunk and high, obviously the city shouldnt pay for that!" should have no bearing here. Yes, the structure should have had a bigger safety buffer, since the tiger leaped beyond his projected ability and mauled the man. It's always tragic when a beautiful animal AND a persons life is destroyed. However, shouldnt the city lawyers focus more on, 'The man was completely negligent in his deliberate attempts to incite this dangerous animal." instead of "The man was drunk and high at the time."?

[kestra]

However, shouldnt the city lawyers focus more on, 'The man was completely negligent in his deliberate attempts to incite this dangerous animal." instead of "The man was drunk and high at the time."?

Totally. Why give compensation or a verdict to someone, or their family who was fucking around in the first place?
Also, why did the tiger have to be put down for acting like a tiger?
This guy brought it onto himself. He wanted a reaction, and ended up getting more than he bargained for.

[Calan]

Whether he was intoxicated or not, he still made a stupid decision, which was entirelu his own fault, not the zoo's fault, and certainly not the tiger's fault. I am sick of people suing as if it's going to solve the problem. Yes, it's sad for the family, but is suing the zoo really going to make them feel any better when it was the kid's own fault anyway?

[Blog]

I posted about this earlier.

I don't think they were throwing things at the tiger, see: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/18/tig...ml#cnnSTCVideo

Yelling and waving at tigers is tasteless, but I don't think someone deserves to die because of it. Being drunk and high has nothing to do with this, if someone was standing around minding their own business drunk and high and got killed by a tiger, no one would blame the victim.

The lawyer probably has a bit of work cut out for him because of all the bad press these kids got, but the zoo was understaffed at the time, poorly designed (and zookeepers knew it), and the tiger had prior attacks.

In general I think we have too many zoos and should eliminate all but the ones that have the ability to properly car e for and display animals.

[Zana]

As I said, two unfortunate incidents: The under-design of the facility and the negligent actions of a visitor.

Granted, "yelling and waving" is immature and tasteless, not deserving to die. If you arent standing up on the railing, are you within range of the tigers leap? I dont think there is ever a situation where stupidity deserves death, no matter how outrageously wreckless. But I do think standing up on the rail where you arent suppose to be is not only a little beyond 'yelling and waving', but also puts himself in harms way.

I did also hear about the tiger having a history of questionable behavior. It probably would have been a good idea to move it to a more contained enclosure.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Zana
I dont think there is ever a situation where stupidity deserves death, no matter how outrageously wreckless.

www.darwinawards.com - some people may and may not DESERVE death, but their stupid actions directly result in their death. Whether or not it's deserved, it's often unsurprising - for instance, if you play "Russian Roulette" with a land mine, it's pretty obvious that eventually it'll go off, and ALL of you are going to die. Do you deserve death? Maybe, maybe not. Are people surprised when you die after doing something that stupid? Nope.

But I do think standing up on the rail where you arent suppose to be is not only a little beyond 'yelling and waving', but also puts himself in harms way.

I did also hear about the tiger having a history of questionable behavior. It probably would have been a good idea to move it to a more contained enclosure.

I think cases like this should be decided on the basis of how well such an outcome could have been predicted. If the tiger has a history of attacking people (and bearing in mind that tigers are by nature dangerous creatures - they're not pussy cats, they're fangs and claws), it should be in an enclosure with sufficient sides that you have to actually climb up on them to be within range. But if someone DOES climb the railing and get close, well, that's their stupidity. I'd like to tell that guy to read 'help hierarchy', but it's a bit late. The tiger has its domain, and if you barge in, expect trouble. The flip side is that the people have a domain too - the paths - and if the tiger violates those, then IT is in trouble. Never mind who got hurt and who didn't, what matters is who violated his space and paid the penalty.

[Pae]

My understanding of US zoo regulations is that there is NO regulated size for a tiger enclosure. There are only recommendations for size and height of the walls. In this instance the height was only slightly under that recommendation.

I do agree the tiger needed to be put down. Though I do not think whatsoever it was the tigers fault. The danger now however when you have a tiger who believes he can get out and has shown to attack humans (even if provoked) is a threat that should be eliminated. Even then, I think the tiger was shot while out of the cage. I mean seriously, do you wait to find the proper tranquilizer or shoot to kill?

All of this aside, one thing that literally disgusts me about the US is how whenever ANYTHING happens people are looking for someone to blame. I think it is pathetic and petty to try and pin all the blame on one individual/institution. In Air Traffic Control we learn about something called the 'swiss cheese model' where basically there are NUMEROUS factors to any accident. No matter what you do there is always a 'hole' in it where something can go wrong. You line up 10 pieces of swiss cheese and usually everything gets covered. However, once in awhile, the holes line up and an accident happens.

So who's fault is it? I think blame can easily be spread around a number of parties, individuals, and institutions. It was an unfortunate accident and nobody should be sued over.

[Blog]

Originally posted by Elvion
My understanding of US zoo regulations is that there is NO regulated size for a tiger enclosure. There are only recommendations for size and height of the walls. In this instance the height was only slightly under that recommendation.

The wall was 12.5 ft, the guideline is 16.5 ft, thats almost 25% shorter than it should be.

If someone died at an amusement park because some safety feature was 25% off of a guideline, I don't think anyone would be saying the amusement park shouldn't be sued.

[Tartun]

Back to the relevancy of the coroners statement that drugs and alcohol were in the deceased's bloodstream. I personally think this is incredibly relevant. Unless you are 12, or stubborn you have to admit that the likelyhood that someone was acting like a retard while under the influence of alcohol and drugs is pretty good.
This automatically makes the statement relevant in a case where each party is arguing weather the deceased may have been acting like a retard. The family is upset because their little idiot had a bad time? Refund the ticket.

[Tartun]

Originally posted by Blog If someone died at an amusement park because some safety feature was 25% off of a guideline, I don't think anyone would be saying the amusement park shouldn't be sued.

Unfortunately, rolercoasters don't jump off the tracks and kill a person because he/she is an asshole. Next time you go to an amusement park you will realize that this is obviously not the case. ;P