Remember the brothers who got mauled at the zoo?

i'm a big fan of modified comparative negligence here. they were more than 50% responsible for the attack imo, so the zoo should get off.
 
"A tiger is a tiger. It could have snapped because it didn't like the look of a baby, or got startled at some baby crying. It could have snapped for many reasons."

That's what everyone here is trying to point out. I am sure this tiger had been subject to all of your scenarios a hundred times with no reaction like this one. Why were these losers able to provoke it to make a very difficult leap out of its habitat? You maybe right about the zoo ultimately paying, but verdicts in California jury trials don't necessarily mean that real justice was served...just ask the Brown family.
confused.gif
 
They were ******* with it, but that doesn't matter. Even if they were throwing rocks at it, under no circumstances should the tiger be able to get out. The fact that it did gives the suit merit.
 
Too bad the two other douchebags did not get mauled. This way this stupid lawsuit or the Target one would not exist or be an issue. The sad result of the Tiger being put to sleep would still have happened, though. That is really the only sad aspect to this story.

**** those guys.
 
...crossing shotgun and Mr. Wizard off of the Pay Attention To list.

I know they are heartbroken by this development.

As for the kids and the tiger, I will quote an eloquent and succint rap lyric, "don't start no ****, won't be no ****."
 
Just like I said 6 months ago...........

I think PETA people and their ilk are some of the weirdest people on the planet.

Some of the respones on this thread are amazing.
 
I think PETA people and their ilk are some of the weirdest people on the planet.

Some of the respones on this thread are amazing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

so because we find that the asswipes are to blame instead of the tiger or the zoo, it makes us PETA sympathizers. if that's the case, then where i can sign up to pose nekkid for a PETA ad?

and what's amazing about the comments?
that we see that the asswipes were responsible for their own demise? that they are less than stellar citizens. that the tiger has probably seen a million visitors but it takes these special asswipes to f with it bad enough to make it hunt them down? that their lives were so f'ing sad that they consciously decided to get drunk, visit the zoo and taunt w/ a tiger on xmas day?

yea, i too find all of their actions amazing.
 
"Some of the respones on this thread are amazing."

I think we can all agree that the human beings are the most developed life form on this planet. Some of us assume that privilege comes with a responsibility and others assume that it should be taken advantage of. I am not happy that this kid died, nor am I happy the poor tiger died. From a look at things the kid that died was pissed about his friends behavior, the tiger that died was pissed about their behavior and now they stand to become wealthy from it.
 
Just because the the zoo was wrong does not mean that these idiots should get to profit from it. That's why I hate punitive damages. If they didn't lose any money they shouldn't get any money, if they did, they should get what they lost and nothing more.
 
Good Lord people.......fualt is not a "black and white" issue.
Yes, the Zoo is likely to be found negligent. So perhaps will the claimant(s). But that's not the ultimate quesiton.

The ultimate quesiton is two-fold:

1. Did the negligence, if any, of the following cause the injury/death:

Zoo Yes or No
Claimant(s) Yes of No

If you answered Yes for both, what percentage to you attribute to each:

Zoo _______%

Claimant(s) ________%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top