Posted On: December 25, 2007

Tiger Escapes Zoo and Kills One Person

A tiger escaped from its cage at the San Francisco Zoo and killed one person. Three young men were observing the Tiger area at the time of the incident. One of them was killed while others tried to distract and get the Tiger off of their friend. The incident took place in California. As a guest of the zoo, the young men were entitled to a reasonable safe environment to be walk through the common walkways without attack by the Tiger or any other animals for that matter.

animal

If the incident took place in Florida, it would make a big difference if the person was an employee or guest. If the victim was an employee, Florida worker's compensation laws would be the primary authority for the case. Typically, a death case has a cap of $150,000 for worker's compensation cases. On the other hand, if the case involved a guest, there would be no limits on a case of this nature for the wrongful death of the guest.

Jacksonville Florida has a wonderful zoo. I am not aware of any wrongful death incidents at the Jacksonville Zoo which is a well run attraction located North of Downtown Jacksonville. My family has an annual pass and we enjoy our trips to the zoo. In reading the San Francisco Zoo incident, I will be on the look out for any safety problems at the Jacksonville Zoo and report them accordingly. I know one of the Directors of the Zoo and it would be nice to help him and the Zoo avoid the tragedies like the one in San Francisco if I see any problems at our Zoo.

If you or your child has been injured at a Zoo, park, attraction or other location, please contact David Wolf - Attorney - Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for a free consultation regarding the incident and your rights.

Posted On: December 13, 2007

Florida's Dog Bite Statute (Full Text)

Here is the full text of Florida's Dog Bite Statute:

767.04 Dog owner's liability for damages to persons bitten.--The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness. However, any negligence on the part of the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the owner of the dog by the percentage that the bitten person's negligence contributed to the biting incident. A person is lawfully upon private property of such owner within the meaning of this act when the person is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when the person is on such property upon invitation, expressed or implied, of the owner. However, the owner is not liable, except as to a person under the age of 6, or unless the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner, if at the time of any such injury the owner had displayed in a prominent place on his or her premises a sign easily readable including the words "Bad Dog." The remedy provided by this section is in addition to and cumulative with any other remedy provided by statute or common law.