01-17-2008, 05:28 AM
Yesterday, Police had slapped criminal case against Paul Dhaliwal, some old DUI. These guys are not clean.
<b>The brothers are charged in 2 unrelated incidents Allegations include battery on officer, public intoxication</b>
Whatever it is Zoo fault. Whether these guys were taunting or not , how tiger was able to escape? Zoo failed to follow proper procedure.
These guys are lawyered up. Zoo is trying to minimize loss by targeting victim. Zoo knows they have to shed millions, they are worried about future insurance etc.
National media is doing fine, only local media is bit negative, don't forget Kamala Harris is around. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The high-profile lawyer hired by the brothers, Mark John Geragos attacked the zoo for what he called a "vicious, defamatory smear campaign" that falsely suggested his clients were armed with slingshots and had been drinking that day outside the zoo at an establishment that was in fact closed that day.
He said he is planning to file a defamation lawsuit against the public relations agency, Singer Associates. San Francisco Zoo administrators knew the wall surrounding the tiger habitat, at 12 feet high, "couldn't hold a house cat," charged attorney Geragos, best known for defending pop-star Michael Jackson and actress Winona Ryder [Images].
"In an attempt to distract attention from its failure to ensure the safety of its patrons, a so-called crisis management team hired by the zoo has made repeated media attacks on the Dhaliwal brothers," alleged Geragos.
"On a daily basis these agents of the zoo have made numerous false statements which constitute actionable defamation."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For one thing, said Matt Davis, a San Francisco personal-injury lawyer and former deputy city attorney, noted that the zoo, which was free to the public in 1952, now charges $11for adult tickets.
<b>"Once you start charging admission, your responsibility to the patrons increases," </b>he said.
In addition, it remains subject to the traditional rule that a zookeeper, like a dynamite-hauler or anyone else engaged in what the law classifies as "ultra-hazardous activities," can be held responsible for injuries caused by those activities even if it did nothing wrong.
Also, <b>it shouldn't be hard for a plaintiff suing over the tiger attack to prove that both the city, which designed the zoo and owns the land and animals, and the Zoological Society, which is responsible for day-to-day operations, were negligent</b>.
<b>"Based on the facts that have come out, this is a clear-cut case of negligence," </b>said John Diamond, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. <b>He cited the zoo director's admission that the moat wall around the tiger grotto was 4 feet below national safety standards, and 7 1/2 feet shorter than zoo officials had said it was.</b>
<b>"There's no excuse for having an enclosure that does not conform to industry standards and allows a wild animal to escape," </b>Diamond told the paper.
link
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>The brothers are charged in 2 unrelated incidents Allegations include battery on officer, public intoxication</b>
Whatever it is Zoo fault. Whether these guys were taunting or not , how tiger was able to escape? Zoo failed to follow proper procedure.
These guys are lawyered up. Zoo is trying to minimize loss by targeting victim. Zoo knows they have to shed millions, they are worried about future insurance etc.
National media is doing fine, only local media is bit negative, don't forget Kamala Harris is around. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The high-profile lawyer hired by the brothers, Mark John Geragos attacked the zoo for what he called a "vicious, defamatory smear campaign" that falsely suggested his clients were armed with slingshots and had been drinking that day outside the zoo at an establishment that was in fact closed that day.
He said he is planning to file a defamation lawsuit against the public relations agency, Singer Associates. San Francisco Zoo administrators knew the wall surrounding the tiger habitat, at 12 feet high, "couldn't hold a house cat," charged attorney Geragos, best known for defending pop-star Michael Jackson and actress Winona Ryder [Images].
"In an attempt to distract attention from its failure to ensure the safety of its patrons, a so-called crisis management team hired by the zoo has made repeated media attacks on the Dhaliwal brothers," alleged Geragos.
"On a daily basis these agents of the zoo have made numerous false statements which constitute actionable defamation."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For one thing, said Matt Davis, a San Francisco personal-injury lawyer and former deputy city attorney, noted that the zoo, which was free to the public in 1952, now charges $11for adult tickets.
<b>"Once you start charging admission, your responsibility to the patrons increases," </b>he said.
In addition, it remains subject to the traditional rule that a zookeeper, like a dynamite-hauler or anyone else engaged in what the law classifies as "ultra-hazardous activities," can be held responsible for injuries caused by those activities even if it did nothing wrong.
Also, <b>it shouldn't be hard for a plaintiff suing over the tiger attack to prove that both the city, which designed the zoo and owns the land and animals, and the Zoological Society, which is responsible for day-to-day operations, were negligent</b>.
<b>"Based on the facts that have come out, this is a clear-cut case of negligence," </b>said John Diamond, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. <b>He cited the zoo director's admission that the moat wall around the tiger grotto was 4 feet below national safety standards, and 7 1/2 feet shorter than zoo officials had said it was.</b>
<b>"There's no excuse for having an enclosure that does not conform to industry standards and allows a wild animal to escape," </b>Diamond told the paper.
link
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->