Posted on 01/05/2008 4:26:41 AM PST by repinwi
I am all for allowing the father of the dead 17 year old to use any means necessary to extract the truth from the two punks who made this pact.
That said, SF is such a liberal town that I wouldn’t be surprised if the zoo permitted the lower end of the recommended height just to make the tiger enclosure seem less enclosed. Over the last decade it seems that virtually cageless zoos have been a goal of the animal rights folks.
On a side note, I never knew that zoo heads made the money that this one makes...what, 300k/year?
CA law based on lib nanny state theory. It's not compatable with the concepts of ability, responsibility for one's actions and freedom.
There you go again with your personal opinions.
As a “matter of law” the zoo was found negligent.
As a “matter of fact” their insurance carrier refused to pay because of their negligence.
As a matter of fact, the tiger got out of the cage, no matter how you try to spin.
No. It appears business law isn't one of your strong points either. The $18K was a fine, not a liability. Insurance doesn't cover fines.
"As a matter of fact, the tiger got out of the cage"
As a matter of fact, a tiger requires motivation to do something. As a matter of fact, the tiger's behavior upon exiting the pit was that of territorial defense. As a matter of fact, the 3 miscreants were present at the exhibit both before and after the tiger exited the pit. Those facts indicate the miscreants are perps and caused the tiger's mental state, which provided for the tiger's motivation to exit the pit. An exit that has never been duplicated in any way in the pit's entire 67 year history.
No, "sources said" that "paramedics heard". The article doesn't ever say that "paramedics said", much less give a paramedic a name.
Unparsed, the article is saying that someone said that they heard that a paramedic said...
"As a matter of fact, the tiger got out of the cage"
And that's the bottom line. It's a matter of time before that becomes a matter of law in the certain litigation which will follow.
#244. Since there's been only one judgment, you must be referring to the $18K fine.
I didn’t say it concerned a fine, or even a judgment. But upthread, Sacajaweau stated the insurance carrier wouldn’t pay off. You may want to ask HER to what she was referring. I believe it likely something altogether different than any kind of fine, but I certainly made no such claim it concerned a fine. Perhaps it had to do with the fact that prior to entering into litigation, the insurance company refused to pay anything to her. That is not unusual, however, for insurance companies.
Posted by to nicmarlo
On General/Chat ^ 01/05/2008 9:01:23 PM EST · 235 of 244 ^
And the Zoo’s insurance company wouldn’t pay off either.
I believe the insurance company wouldn’t pay her medical bills.
The Worker's Comp policy is to provide for all work related injuries. There's no justification whatsoever for a Worker's Comp Co. to refuse legitimate medical coverage in this incident. No other insurance company would be liable, unless it explicitly covers any residual bills, or coverage regardless of cause.
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.