Based on your common sense or knowledge of the law, do you agree with this Judge's decision?

Question

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/zoocheck/ChristieALS.shtml

Basically, the stripper was suing the popular Safari game park for $2.2 million in damages resulting from the April 19, 1996 incident. Balac is seeking $1 million. Balac was also suing Cowles, accusing her of opening the window, and she's suing him, charging that he was driving a car that wasn't working properly.He took her to the theme park, she opened the window, they both sued the theme park owners as well as one another. Ontario Superior Court Justice Jean MacFarland rejected arguments that the couple had ignored signs at the African Lion Safari Game Farm warning visitors to keep their car windows firmly closed.

"There is no question ... that tigers are dangerous, unpredictable, wild predators. Persons who display such animals in out-of-control settings should, in my view, be held strictly liable for any damage resulting from such display," the judge said.

Balac's parents and sister were also awarded $49,500. Cowles' mother and two children also received $45,000!

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

i have self belief each and each of the courtroom stated became, "Whoa. enable's wait a minute the following before we placed complicated law into result that has large civil rights implications." sounds like the prudent flow to me. Your arguments could have some validity, yet they are for down the line. And the structure became no longer designed as a extensive record, yet only a framework. we've accomplished rather properly with it so some distance.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

If windows were open in the vehicle when they were warned to shut them before the drive NO MONEY for them

Answer 5

No, it's amazing to me that judges come up with these awards for stupidity. Where is the responsibility for their own actions.

Answer 6

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 7

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.