Waiver against being eaten

At one Argentine zoo, the degree of interaction permitted between animals and human visitors might startle U.S. risk managers. [Tyler Cowen]


  • If a parent signs a waiver and lets his/her child ride a lion that then eats that child, won’t we need a lawyer to prosecute that parent and a lawyer to defend that parent’s right to make decisions for his child?

    If 100 parents sign 100 waivers and their children ride 100 lions that eat all those children, won’t we need 100 lawyers to prosecute the parents, 100 lawyers to defend them, and at least one to file a class-action lawsuit to shut that petting zoo down?

    I guess this post doesn’t really promote the reduction of lawyers.

  • Now if they would just have the lions eat 100 lawyers, a lot of people would cheer.

  • @Bill Alexander: Yes, they would, but then someone–PETA, perhaps–would sue for lawyer-induced lion indigestion.

  • Sounds like a great congressional junket…they should visit right before feeding time…

  • As I was going to Lujan Zoo, I met a man with who’d gone there too. The man I met had seven wives. Every wife had seven kids. Every kid had seven sacks. Every sack had seven cats. Every cat had seven kits.
    Kits, cats, sacks, kids, and wives will do, how many hungry tigers are at the Lujan Zoo?

  • Jurassic Park should have issued those waivers…

    Duly blogged over at my place, with this musing:

    This zoo allows visitors to get up close and personal with the feral attractions. It reminds me a bit of the SNL sketches where Joan face (Jane Curtin) interviews Mr. Mainway (Dan Aykroyd) about his latest excessively unsafe entrepreneurial venture. One was a line of children’s Halloween costumes, which included “Johnny Human Torch” – a bunch of oily rags and a match.