It was Christmas Day 2007 when we were all horrified to learn about the tragic tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo. In November, attorneys for Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal (the brothers who were attacked but survived) filed a lawsuit against The City, among others. (Download Complaint.) Last week, the parents of Carlos Sousa Jr., who was killed by the tiger, filed their own lawsuit. (Download Sousa Complaint.)
One might think that two lawsuits resulting from basically the same circumstances would be similar, and there are some parallels: both cases allege that The City and the Zoological Society had a special duty to protect the public from the tiger and were negligent. But there are interesting differences between the claims, too.
First of all, the Dhaliwal case was filed in federal court, while the Sousa case was filed in state court. Why? Generally, negligence claims are properly heard in state court. However, the Dhaliwal claim also alleges that the brothers’ constitutional rights were violated when the police refused to return their car and stuff after the attack. If this sounds fishy, that’s because it is. A more likely reason for filing in federal court is because federal jury members come from a large geographic area — whereas the San Francisco Superior Court gets you a San Francisco jury, and folks in this city have been treated to plenty of information about the brothers’ charmless and criminal behavior.
Second, the Sousa lawsuit also demands that the court force the zoo to “meet all minimum enclosure requirements recommended by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.” The Dhaliwal brothers’ claim contains no such regard for future zoo operations.
These distinctions, while small, speak volumes.
Comments