| Botulism Olives
Posted: 2/14/2008 6:42:43 PM | | Olives sold by a manufacturer is an example of Product Liability. In American Jurisprudence, simply put, if you sell something that is defective, and someone is harmed by it, you can be held liable for that person's damages. In a case of Product Liability, only two elements must be proven; that the product was defective at the time it was "placed into the stream of commerce," and that someone suffered damages because of the defect in the product. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/14/2008 10:47:30 PM |
Is that God's fault as well?
This is just sillliness and doesn't warrant a response. If you're responsive and have something subtantive to say, fine, but when arguments drift off into fallacy land I lose interest really quickly.
I am not able to recall any "reasonableness test"
Ooook. Maybe the "reasonable man" test is an east coast thing. Or a Canadian thing.
I'd surely be doing some research on the Affirmative Defense of Assumption of the Risk, and the fact that at least one of the surviving brothers admittedly violated the Endangered Species Act, which is a Felony. The fact that someone committed a criminal act, which is not foreseeable, is an Affirmative Defense that can be raised.
Problem of that is the assumption of risk is based on the (reasonable) presumption the cage is "adquate" It wasn't. And while you're mincing semantics over the term "taunt" the judge has a dead body to consider and a horrified public. Who vote for judges.
But, this is going to, at best, appear to be "a technicality" and the obvious (to me, anyway) counter-argument is "Your honour, your little girl could have been there that day. Poeple make noise all the time and there's a reason we have safety standards for potentially lethal animals in public zoological attractions and the zoo abrogated their responsability to public safety by ignoring these standards. Nobody would even go in knowing the cage was small enough to let the tiger jump out and kill somebody. That is, with an adequate cage what they did would be annoying, with an inadequate cage what they did was lethal. How can anybody make a risk assesement not knowing if the zoo is up to spec?"
Course I would have checked to see the judge had a daughter. I might have said son. Or whatever
FWIW, the half dozen or so attornies I know all say "the zoo is at fault 100%". | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/15/2008 3:25:01 AM | I have yet to say anyone is at fault.
I also didn't say the affirmative defenses would work either.
Thankfully, Judges are not triers of fact, and playing upon people's sensibilities in the neutrality of a Courtroom are heavily frowned upon.
I'd be most interested in hearing what you find in your research, as I'm sure you've been looking, as to a "reasonable man" test.
After sleeping on it, one point you may look up is a Juror; they are commonly referred to as a "reasonable man." However, Jurors are triers of fact; they do not determine whether a Complaint merits the attention of the Court. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/16/2008 12:59:40 PM | I surely wouldn't consider using any one of these half dozen attorneys that believe the zoo is 100% at fault. Any attorney who would dare to state such an opinion, without knowing the complete facts of the case, is stepping way out on a limb, and, in my humble opinion, would likely be one to take their Errors and Omissions policy for a test drive in the future.
Problem of that is the assumption of risk is based on the (reasonable) presumption the cage is "adquate" It wasn't.
Assumption of the risk is based upon someone assuming the risks of any activity in which they choose to partake. For instance, if you skydive, you assume the risk that your parachutes, main, and reserve, may not function properly. Therefore, no one can be held liable for your death from the parachutes malfuntioning.
And while you're mincing semantics over the term "taunt" the judge has a dead body to consider and a horrified public.
It's not a matter of semantics. The Endangered Species Act is quite clear on the matter, as we have already discussed here.
How can anybody make a risk assesement not knowing if the zoo is up to spec?"
Let's see, at least one of the presumed Plaintiffs used a bottle of vodka, and marijuana, in making their assessment. Obviously, they assessed in error. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/16/2008 3:49:13 PM |
I surely wouldn't consider using any one of these half dozen attorneys that believe the zoo is 100% at fault. Any attorney who would dare to state such an opinion, without knowing the complete facts of the case, is stepping way out on a limb, and, in my humble opinion, would likely be one to take their Errors and Omissions policy for a test drive in the future.
you're absolutely right. NO attorney would be an imbecillic statement like that. hell, no first year law student would. hell, in reality, no one with an ounce of sense would say something that stupid since it's prima facie fallacious | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/16/2008 3:54:39 PM | | well their is a god u should be smart enough not to taunt animals yes tigers been thier for how long no problems y now if animal gets loose probably will attack everyone not only the one that taunted him come one what was american founded upon what is it now we all know right from wrong well most do y do so many do wrong u drive u car in front of my big truck hit the brakes i cant stop in time y u do it god made u or u just not smart enough to relize what u doing or was u drunk on drugs etc kids was having fun but got to be smarter than that open zoo or was tiger so hurt it found way out that day ???? im sure they were old enough to know what they were doing or young and dumb ?? its only what the survivors say happen happened maybe its a shame the tiger couldnt talk hmm cameras show what what is shown look at past how bout rodeny king what the tv show only what they wanted showed think we all know everything involved wasnt showed not saying he was wrong or right i dont know i didnt see all involved lets get back to america how bout leave it to beaver etc lassie come on people get your roots back lets make america america again | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/16/2008 4:07:30 PM | | whats so disgusting in our society is we cage these animals for our own amusment how ****ing sad and pathetic is that have you ever seen these animals pace back and fourth all day going insane ?its not natural they are meant to be free like us even more so... thats why i stopped going to a zoo a long time ago we are the cruel ones plain and simple | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/17/2008 11:24:06 AM | While the caging of animals, and zoos in particular, are not everyone's cup of tea; zoos do serve a purpose within society.
Not many people can afford to travel the world to see wild animals in their natural habitat. Thus, zoos serve the purpose of educating, and enlightening, people of all ages with respect to those animals exhibited within the respective zoo.
Zoos also serve a purpose in preserving those species of animals, of which a breeding pair are in captivity. A number of species of animals once on the brink of extinction have been saved from this fate by the breeding programs in zoos.
The vast majority of animals exhibited in zoos today, including the tiger that escaped its enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo, are born in captivity. Thus, the majority of animals on exhibit in zoos today, have never known any environment other than captivity. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/23/2008 2:24:00 AM | We wild creatures will always act primarily on instinct... whatever the exceptional or special circumstances that lead to the kill... there is a law of the jungle, that is between the victim, the pursuer, the hunted, the predator... and sometimes the bystander...
Every so often the environment lends a (fatal) hand to the endeavour of nature's transactions between living soul and another....
Blame mentality will always miss the fact that it can be pure (devastating) timing that causes a single moment of fatality.
Often there are near misses, and the victim escapes... | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/23/2008 5:34:10 AM | Being mauled to death by a tiger is a just punishment for taunting the animal? What if it was your son or daughter? I can't believe some of the responses i have read in this thread. Those kids did not deserved to die. As far as who was at fault here..it was the Zoo. How can you come to any other conclusion? That animal should not have been able to leap the wall to get to ANYBODY.
In reality that animal was capable of leaping over the wall when hungry and attacking an innocent visitor for a meal. Eventually it would have happen. And then who's fault is it? | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/23/2008 9:10:56 AM |
animal was capable of leaping over the wall when hungry and attacking an innocent visitor for a meal.
The tiger didn't 'eat' anyone. She didn't attack because she was hungry and looking for a meal. It was payback, not hunger. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/23/2008 9:21:52 AM | | Tha animal was capable of leaping "if" he was hungry. Thats what he meant. I think you know that, your just trying to avoid the truth.The zoo should have been prepared for anything to protect the public.No matter if it was hunger, taunting, earthquake or tornado. I understand the sympathy for the tiger.What i dont understand is the lack of sympathy for this boy and his family. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/23/2008 8:03:55 PM |
Being mauled to death by a tiger is a just punishment for taunting the animal? What if it was your son or daughter? I can't believe some of the responses i have read in this thread. Those kids did not deserved to die. As far as who was at fault here..it was the Zoo. How can you come to any other conclusion? That animal should not have been able to leap the wall to get to ANYBODY.
We should send Rapists, Terrorists, Serial Killers, and Child Pornographers to this zoo also - it only seems fair. If some kids can justifiably be killed for wrongly teasing a tiger, then it makes it unfair to the really evil people that literally get away with murder...they should have a chance also!
We can make this zoo into something yet!
(btw, no tigers will be harmed - the inmates will be armed with only a "toga".) | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Home
login 
