The litigation against the city of San Francisco began this week over the Christmas Day Tiger attack with papers filed by brothers, Kulbir and Paul Dhaliwal. As the claim below indicates, they are contesting claims of contributory negligence ad assumption based on their own conduct, contending that the 243-pound Siberian tiger named Tatiana was held improperly.
The case will be interesting due to the evidence that the enclosure of the tiger did not meet industry standards — and whether that was the proximate causation of the injury. As discussed here, there is also the question of whether the conduct of these men contributed to the attack given allegations of taunting and drug use.
The claim is based on negligence but includes strict liability and a wide array of other theories from negligent infliction of emotional distress to property damage. This is the firs step for such a case. The claims gives the city 45 days to make an offer of settlement under state law. For a copy of the claim, click here.
For the full article, click here.
Why fight it? Just give each of them and their attorneys 5 million, make the apologies, and wait for the next incident then pay ASAP. Try to convince new claimants to use the same attorneys these two hoods did because then maybe the attorneys will settle for less since they already have a good share of the 5 million….
If these guys intentionally aggravated the tiger, which I believe they did, I hope the zoo at least fights it. I also hope they have witnesses or footage, perhaps they could sue the boys & Geragos on the tiger’s behalf.
jane:
I must wonder why you believe they did antagonize the tiger. I have only seen press reports promulgating opposing versions of the facts. I am not sure what Geragos did to justify an attack on his representation whether in jest or not. Certainly the zoo could have a claim against the boys if the boys aggravated the tiger so much that their actions caused injury or death to others under a theory of contribution among joint tortfeasors. Most wild animal liability is based on theories of strict liability which would impose liability based on the inherent dangerousness of the activity of keeping a zoo. Why don’t we do something novel by neo-con standards and wait to see exactly what facts come out in court and then render judgment on the actions of all concerned, including, of course, Mark Geragos.