• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Brothers receive $900,000 settlement for San Francisco zoo tiger attack

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think that the brothers are probably idiot thugs. On the other hand, it is irrelevant whether or not they provoked the tiger in terms of the zoo's liability.

The only question here should be:
Did the zoo exercise reasonable care when choosing to put the tigers in the enclosure?

Was the enclosure built to legal specifications? While indicative of the level of negligence, court cases have shown that "legal" doesn't absolve fault. It kind of sucks for a business, but that's the way the law works.

Was the enclosure up to the standard of care exercised by similar businesses (i.e. zoos)?
Haven't seen anything about that, other than the lawyer's statement, and he sure ain't to be trusted.

Did this tiger escape from the enclosure the same way the other tigers (mentioned in a previous post) escape?
 
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Err, I don't get it. If the guys did NOT taunt the tiger in any way I don''t see why it would have attacked. At least according to the person i know that works with animals like tigers they are not going to just randomly attack someone.

Edit: The tiger enclosure was WITHIN THE REQUIRED SPECIFICATIONS. Everything I have seen has stated that they recently changed the recommended height to be higher, but that the enclosure was within the legal range.
Click to expand...

Maybe they looked tasty.
 
quote: "The Dhaliwals also argued that the exterior wall of the tiger cage was four feet below the recommended height for tiger enclosure, that Tatiana had previously attacked a caretaker during a public feeding session and was shown to be an aggressor in several attacks on other tigers. "

My gosh, the tiger was "shown to be an agressor in several attacks on other tigers".
The tiger was agressive. Must not be the zoo's fault then, it was the agressive tiger.

I agree that the tiger never should have escaped from its enclosure, and the zoo employees were wrong not to let the brothers into the building to escape the tigers.

But does anyone wonder why thousands if not millions of people were able to observe these animals in safety, and when these two brothers and their friend go to the zoo around closing time, the tiger goes ballistic and escapes and mauls them? I don't believe it was a coincidence. And there was a witness who saw the men behaving badly and left the area.

Boomer D:" Sounds like Karma...and Darwin rolled up in one" :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Err, I don't get it. If the guys did NOT taunt the tiger in any way I don''t see why it would have attacked. At least according to the person i know that works with animals like tigers they are not going to just randomly attack someone.

Edit: The tiger enclosure was WITHIN THE REQUIRED SPECIFICATIONS. Everything I have seen has stated that they recently changed the recommended height to be higher, but that the enclosure was within the legal range.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? I read that the incident revealed a lot of code that the SF Zoo was not meeting, including the height of the enclosure.
 
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
. At least according to the person i know that works with animals like tigers they are not going to just randomly attack someone.

.
Click to expand...

what? thats just insane. a tiger is not going randomly attack someone? you do know the tigar that killed the boy also attacked a zoo keeper before this?

ugh.
Click to expand...

I can 99% promise you that was a fault on the zookeeper's part. It's not at all a random behavior when a large, wild predator looks at an arm like a threat/toy/meal/whatever. Especially when it's not part of their training routine, in their "den". Captive or not.

Regardless, simply due to previous concerns of escapability, the zoo should bare the responsibility of the escape. Animals are taunted at all day long. They should not be able to escape. I find it completely believable that the kids would have provoked it somehow (dangling a bag over the wall, their legs, whatever)...but it shouldn't matter.
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
Can some one please explain to me what would be "taunting" to tiger? Does making funny faces, or calling it names hurt it feels.
Click to expand...

Dangling a bag, feet, etc, in the enclosure to "bait" it would be quite effective. Simply hopping the guard rail would be inciting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top