Comments on: “Zoo settles with brothers in tiger attack”

By: Dirk D

Dirk D — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 01:35:23 +0000

“If the plaintiffs were at fault, there would be no empathy. ”

You can’t possibly believe this.

Fault does not necessarily negate empathy. Fault may make a jury less likely to find for a plaintiff, but it won ‘t prevent them from empathizing with a person who has suffered real harm. Even if it was a product of their actions.

By: Eric T.

Eric T. — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:25:41 +0000

As Eric is well aware, to take this case to trial would cost more than $900,000,

Only if you hire some BigLaw firm and are dumb enough to pay them $900/hr while they do 25x the work that is really necessary.

The question about defending a case is that often merit doesn’t matter as much as empathy.

If the plaintiffs were at fault, there would be no empathy. You can’t have it both ways.

By: athEIst

athEIst — Sun, 31 May 2009 21:03:51 +0000

They should have been fined and charged for the loss of an endangered species. There’s no shortage of irresponsible(and in this case, drunken) teenagers. As a previous commenter said millions have viewed this animal with no ill effects.

By: Ted

Ted — Sun, 31 May 2009 17:12:46 +0000

As Eric is well aware, to take this case to trial would cost more than $900,000, which makes the fact of settlement rather irrelevant to outside observers’ perception of the case.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Sun, 31 May 2009 13:45:35 +0000

For Eric T.

The question about defending a case is that often merit doesn’t matter as much as empathy. A human being was injured and the zoo has money.

Now the guy is likely to use his funds to buy a car that goes 200 miles an hour.

By: Eric T.

Eric T. — Sun, 31 May 2009 11:08:29 +0000

No, my opinion is based on the statements of the zoo, the fact that hundreds of thousands of other people visited the tiger without incident, and the plaintiffs’ previous record of criminal behavior including one’s thrillseeking of leading police on a 140 mph chase.

Well, then the case should be very easy to defend, if that is all there is to it, right?

Perhaps the zoo, defense lawyers and insurnace company have a bit more info and knowledge than whatever you read in press accounts?

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:23:25 +0000

I’m with Eric T. $900,000 for a cat scratch? Why is the zoo so eager to hand out other people’s money?

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:10:59 +0000

@Eric T.: No, my opinion is based on the statements of the zoo, the fact that hundreds of thousands of other people visited the tiger without incident, and the plaintiffs’ previous record of criminal behavior including one’s thrillseeking of leading police on a 140 mph chase.

By: Eric T.

Eric T. — Sat, 30 May 2009 10:46:31 +0000

At least I’m not a California taxpayer. I’m appalled.

Why? Did you make a decision on what had happened based solely on accounts in the press?

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:35:05 +0000

“The Zoological Society earlier this year settled a lawsuit with the Sousa family for an undisclosed amount.”

At least I’m not a California taxpayer. I’m appalled.