Tiger attack!!!

Check this out, should dude have to pay or what?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28474480/?gt1=43001#storyContinued

NO NO NO IMO

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Check this out, should dude have to pay or what?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28474480/?gt1=43001#storyContinued

Are they not saying that the price of his medical bills should be taken out of the compensation he will receive? That seems fair enough to me.

Bit of a strange argument to drop down on a side...You can say that if he was taunting the animal then he got what he deserved and yes he should pay out of any compensation he gets. On the other hand you can argue that regardless of whether he was taunting the animal, it should never be able to escape and injure someone.

Originally posted by jaden101
Bit of a strange argument to drop down on a side...You can say that if he was taunting the animal then he got what he deserved and yes he should pay out of any compensation he gets. On the other hand you can argue that regardless of whether he was taunting the animal, it should never be able to escape and injure someone.

Doesn't matter, he is still getting complimentary care- that should be part of the compensation.

If the compensation is increased to reflect bills, then sure, but the implication here is that this is not the case.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Doesn't matter, he is still getting complimentary care- that should be part of the compensation.

So he should get compensation regardless of whether or not it was his own fault for taunting the animal?

I don't think it is actually a point of liability to taunt an animal being kept (supposedly) safe, unless there were 'do not taunt the animal' signs around.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't think it is actually a point of liability to taunt an animal being kept (supposedly) safe, unless there were 'do not taunt the animal' signs around.

and even then...

In any case, I doubt it is legally possible to make a case that ONLY those people (or, as it seems, just this one guy, as for whatever reason they don't seme to want costs back from the other non-dead one) did the taunting.

Its the Zoo´s responsibility to protect their guests from dangerous animals, if they fail they should pay for it imo.

Even if the bloke tauted the animal, kids taunt animals as well doesn´t mean its their fault if they get eaten.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't think it is actually a point of liability to taunt an animal being kept (supposedly) safe, unless there were 'do not taunt the animal' signs around.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't think it is actually a point of liability to taunt an animal being kept (supposedly) safe, unless there were 'do not taunt the animal' signs around.

If they are in a secure environment, then I would actually say we have an active right to do that, distasteful though it may be.

If there is a possibility that doing so might get you into trouble, then darn right it should be signposted, yes.

If you don't agree then you don't understand the concept of liability.

really, so there should be a sign to state the obvious, like "don't try and piss off that tiger"

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
hahaha obviously its ok to taunt dangerous and powerful beasts if there is no sign...

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Dude, common sense comes into play. It's a 500 pound killing machine.

oh cmon its just a big pussy..cat..so far from what Ive googled...it is the ZOO's liability ...period

Who's to say what constitutes taunting a wild animal? What if the age of the victims was lowered by 10 years but the actions were the same? The bottom line is, the enclosure wasn't sufficient to restrain the animal, period. The city is liable for this unfortunate oversight.

I think the city is within it's rights since the suits filed were against parties other than the zoo, itself. I can't imagine why these individuals would have cause to sue the police department.