Based on your common sense or knowledge of the law, do you agree with this Judge's decision?
Nine years ago, then-stripper Jennifer-Anne Cowles and her accordion-playing beau David Balac were driving through a safari park in Ontario, Canada when a tiger actually snagged them from their vehicle, causing scars and serious injury. While the park long contested the couple's windows were not rolled up, Cowles and Balac finally received $800,000 and $1.7 million, respectively. Judge Jean McFarland awarded most of the money due to both victims' careers being severely hampered as a result of the incident.
Full Case Document
http://www.zoocheck.com/programs/zoochec...
No. Play with fire you will get burned. It is common sence. Now if the park was negligent I could see an award. Oh well, that is the way it goes I guess.
No.
They put themselves in a situation of danger, knowing the risks involved. They chose to expose themselves to danger, then they chose to not obey safety rules. I wish the tiger had eaten them.
If windows were open in the vehicle when they were warned to shut them before the drive NO MONEY for them
I'd say there has to be reason the tiger pulled them out....if the door or windows were undamaged....I'd have to say they were careless and didn't follow the guidelines of safety.
An appeal should have followed.
Answer:
Having read the actual judicial opinion, it looks like a standard strict liability case. Strict liability applies to wild animals, and tigers fall within that category.
The analysis for strict liability is simple. Were the wild animals under the control of the park, and did the animals cause harm to the plaintiffs. Both of these facts are uncontested. Fault is not an issue under a strict liability theory (unlike negligence).
Contributory negligence is also not a defense in strict liability, and as noted by the judge, voluntary assumption of risk in that jurisdiction only applies to professionals such as zoo-keepers or vets. Most of the answers above seem to argue that comparative fault or contributory negligence should prevent recovery. But that's not what the law says.
The judge didn't ignore the arguments regarding whether the windows were open or closed. The judge properly applied the law, as it already existed in that jurisdiction, which says that it doesn't matter whether the windows were rolled down or not. Contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability, unless the person who was injured was trespassing. That's not what happened here.
So, all elements of the tort are uncontested, and no defenses apply. The only question therefore is the amount of damages, and the opinion sets forth the formula for how those were calculated.
I don't see the issue. The judge followed the law as it applied to the facts. If you think there should not be any recovery under strict liability, then that's a different debate. If you don't like the law as it exists, because you think it doesn't make sense, then you are arguing to have the law changed. Fine.
But given that strict liability in tort exists, and given the laws that existed at the time, this case is nothing special.
No, it's amazing to me that judges come up with these awards for stupidity. Where is the responsibility for their own actions.
