TIL in 2007, a 17 year old visiting the San Francisco Zoo provoked a Tiger enough that it leapt from its confinement and killed him

I was in law school when this case happened and I remember it in detail. And while you think I'm referencing media lawyers you are wrong and I'm referencing some of the best tort lawyers of our state.

If what you say is 100% correct, it still only amounts to points of view held by lawyers who successfully practice in the field. Any one of the best tort lawyers could argue either side of the case if they were truly the best in that area of law.

The zoo knew the the enclosure didn't meet the necessary guidelines to keep the public safe.

There is a difference between meeting industry standards and following necessary guidelines to keep the public safe. One is a good idea and the other makes it a clear cut case of negligence if not adhered to.

And despite the enumerated list you seem to think would somehow create a case for comparative negligence in this case,

the list I made were the grounds for suit of strict liability that could be made against the tiger taunters, not comparative fault in a suit against the zoo.

the way that strict liability laws are written in the state there should have been NOTHING the plaintiffs could have done that could have led to these events.

This simply isn't true. Comparative fault is a thing in these cases. If we set the bar to the plaintiffs not being responsible for their own behavior in any way on the property, then the zoo would be responsible even if they didn't have a tiger and someone dropped one into a crowd with a helicopter. Sounds far fetched, but still on this side of the line if NOTHING the plaintiffs could have done would have led to their liability for the events. The law is for finding where that line is drawn and a good lawyer would certainly have the grounds for suing the taunters just as well as the zoo.

Taunting and teasing animals goes hand in hand with zoos, especially when there are children involved.

There was more than taunting involved obviously unless they are just that much better at taunting than all the other visitors.

There's a bit of case law I could get into citing to further back up what I think, but if you're so sure that there is no case any good lawyer could have possibly made against the tiger taunters, I'll lay it to rest.

/r/todayilearned Thread Parent Link - en.wikipedia.org