Posted on 01/05/2008 4:26:41 AM PST by repinwi
Soon after their 17-year-old friend was mauled to death by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo, the two brothers who survived the attack made a quick pact not to cooperate with the police as they rode in an ambulance to the hospital, sources told The Chronicle.
"Don't tell them what we did," paramedics heard 23-year-old Kulbir Dhaliwal tell his brother, Paul, 19.
Sources also say that the younger brother was intoxicated at the time of the incident, having used marijuana and consumed enough liquor to have a blood-alcohol level above the .08 limit for adult drivers. The older brother also had been drinking and using marijuana around the time a 350-pound Siberian tiger escaped and killed Carlos Sousa Jr., the sources said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Remember, this is animal rights country. Local sentiment is overwhelmingly pro-tiger. Even the Left thinks the "victims" deserved everything they got. I don't think these two will find a sympathetic venue for a lawsuit anywhere in the state.
Yes, I know. The "someone else" has made numerous claims that are nothing but wild accusations. Contrary to "someone elses" wild accusations, according to numerous articles, it is NOT true that the keeper put her hands into the cage while feeding it, it is NOT true that she was found to be "at fault" (a state investigation showed the zoo was; and the $18,000 fine against it is further evidence that that is the case). And, apparently, it is NOT true that litigation is over. While the date of the previous article is January 2007, according to the December 29, 2007, article below, litigation continues, contrary to "someone else's" unsubstantiated claims. Tiger Attack at SF Zoo Latest Blow
The zoo is already facing a lawsuit by zookeeper Lori Komejan, who was attacked last year when she fed the same tiger involved in the deadly escape. The animal mauled her arm.
In October, Komejan sued the city of San Francisco, seeking compensation for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional distress. She accused the city, which owns the zoo property, of "housing the tigers with reckless disregard for the safety of animal handlers and members of the general public."
Tilson said the San Francisco Zoo attack, which took place while Komejan was in the gutter between the cages and the public viewing space, was "troubling." "Having an area where an animal can reach through in public circumstances is to me rather unusual," he said. "I've never heard of this. That is very, very odd. That to me would not be a safe environment."
“”Having an area where an animal can reach through in public circumstances is to me rather unusual,” he said. “I’ve never heard of this. That is very, very odd. That to me would not be a safe environment.””
Well I guess that answers my previous question.
Thank you for posting the articles - you certainly are a busy bee this morning. Must’ve had a few cups of coffee?
Yes ma’am. : )
The article I last posted says that the SF Zoo may be looking at closure/revocation of its license...who knows. However, I have no doubt they will be paying something to the trainer for her injuries....and will likely settle out of court (and likely for lower than the $8 million she is apparently seeking).
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
Case Number: CGC-07-467895
Title: LORI KOMEJAN VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al
Cause of Action: PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED
DEC-26-2007 Added to Proof of Service Order to Show Cause Calendar Hearing Set for FEB-05-2008 AT 09:00 am in Dept 212
OCT-05-2007 Notice to Plaintiff
OCT-05-2007 Personal Injury/Property Damage - Non-Vehicle Related, Complaint Filed by Plaintiff Komejan, Lori as to Defendant City and County of San Francisco does 1 to 10 Summons Issued, Judicial Council Civil Case Cover Sheet Filed Case Management Conference Scheduled for Mar-07-2008 Proof of Service due on Dec-04-2007 Case Management Statement due on Feb-21-2008
Not if ONE patient was near death or dead........no way. The friends would get in the way of good care. The other two could have been loaded together into one ambulance with minor injuries though. I have taken two patients in in the back many times. It happens.
In any case, I would NEVER divulge such information to the press. It is unprofessional and I would distrust any paramedic who did it.
thanks again!
That settles it...it is unsettled - so far.
lol.
Correct. : )
not sure if you saw this one yet
well...we know one of the brothers was critically injured- they had to shoot the cat to keep him from being killed as well.
I cannot believe they would have loaded up the other brother into the same ambulance.
” It is unprofessional and I would distrust any paramedic who did it.”
hooh boy....while I cannot say I know of any that have spoken to the press - I do know of at least two who gave very inaccurate and inappropriate statements to family members.
Exactly. I don't fault the tiger, I fault the humans. A caretaker should know better than to stand that close. She's been with the zoo since 97' but accidents do happen in the workplace.
True, the paramedics that did this, if they did, need to be fired!
“A caretaker should know better than to stand that close”
I don’t see it as an “either” “or” situation.
She shouldn’t have been standing that close AND the tiger should not been in that type of a cage where it could reach out towards anyone.
Excerpts:
First Cause of Action:There ya go....to protect the public and keepers, mesh wire should have been placed around the openings, and bars beneath gaps. We'll see how the Zoo responds to this in its answer....GN-2. On 12-22-06, at about 2:20 p.m., during a public feeding, plaintiff, an animal keeper for the San Francisco Zoological Society, was severely mauled by a caged 3 1/2 yr. old Siberian tiger.
GN-3. The injury occurred as plaintiff attempted to remove a piece of meat that fell into a drain trough outside the cage. As plaintiff reached for the meat, the tiger reached under the bars of the cage and grabbed plaintiff's right arm. The tiger then grabbed plaintiff's left arm, put her right arm in its mouth and pulled plaintiff's arms through and into the cage causing severe physical and emotional injuries.
GN-4. Defendants, and each of them, acted willfully and recklessly in failing to place safeguards on the cages through which the animals were able to reach and defendants were aware of the dangerous condition of the cage and the potential hazard and increased risk of injury in the "hazard zone" to plaintiff and members of the general public.
GN-5. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants acted willfully and recklessly by erecting, installing, placing, maintaining and retaining the cage housing the tigers with reckless disregard for the safety of animal handlers and members of the general public.
GN-6. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants, and each of them, acted negligently and recklessly by failing to (a) erect a steel barrier to close the gap under the cage and (b) by failing to install strong wire mesh covers over the openings in the cage.
GN-7. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health, State of California (OSHA), conducted an investigation following the 12-22-06 incident and found that the Lion House, built by the City and County of San Francisco in about 1940, contained a defective cage because the large cats housed in said cages could reach under and through the bars, thus creating a potential hazard zone for animal handlers and an increased risk of injury.
“There ya go....to protect the public and keepers, mesh wire should have been placed around the openings, and bars beneath gaps.”
agreed.
But now I have one more question....would you have reached down to pick up that piece of meat?
I think I would have waited until the tiger were much - much further away from that side of the cage.
But that’s just me I guess.
I don’t think I’d have gotten anywhere near the tiger at any time, even if it were sedated. But, that’s just me.
But seeing as how the tigers are moved into a different place when they eat....you’d think that the zoo would ensure that that place was even safer. They necessarily take precautions to make sure that feeding animals are NOT in the same cage during feeding time because they already knew animals being fed pose a danger even between themselves.
one article suggested her back was to the cage and she was distracted by visitors.
This states she was facing the cage and reached close to the cage to pick up the meat.
I’ll go with the latter because that is a court document.
Do you think she bears any responsibility - or is any less deserving of compensation - for reaching in close? knowing the tiger could reach her?
Of course the zoo's records told the AZA that the wall was 19 feet tall. Well over the recommended height.
And I suppose the AZA kept no records? Come on....in order for them to accredit the facility, they had to do their own fact finding and document each enclosure. I don’t believe for one minute that the zoo just told the AZA the height and it received the stamp of approval.
Don't blame the zoo. People have stood outside that cage for 67 years without getting their arm mauled by a tiger. Must have been that woman's fault.
/sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.