Dhaliwal brothers to sue San Francisco zoo for defamation

SILICON VALLEY: The two Indian-origin brothers, who survived the deadly Christmas day tiger attack at a San Francisco zoo, plan to sue its publicists for suggesting that they had 'provoked' the big cat.
 
After a 350-pound Siberian Tigress had mauled Paul Dhaliwal (19) and Kulbir Dhaliwal (23) and killed their teenage friend Carlos Sousa Jr, San Francisco Zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo said that "something happened to provoke that tiger to leap out of her exhibit."
 
The high profile lawyer hired by the brothers, Mark John Geragos attacked the zoo for what he called a 'vicious, defamatory smear campaign' that falsely suggested his clients were armed with slingshots and had been drinking that day outside the zoo at an establishment that was in fact closed that day.
 
He said he is planning to file a defamation lawsuit against the public relations agency, Singer Associates. San Francisco Zoo administrators knew the wall surrounding the tiger habitat, at 12 feet high, 'couldn't hold a house cat', charged attorney Geragos, best known for defending pop-star Michael Jackson and actress Winona Ryder.
 
"In an attempt to distract attention from its failure to ensure the safety of its patrons, a so-called crisis management team hired by the zoo has made repeated media attacks on the Dhaliwal brothers," alleged Geragos.
 
"On a daily basis these agents of the zoo have made numerous false statements which constitute actionable defamation."
 
Meanwhile, in its defence the city is citing a 1952 case and arguing that it can't be held responsible for the attack without proof that its employees were at fault.
 
But lawyers and law professors doubt that the 1952 case is enough to get the city off the hook, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
 
For one thing, said Matt Davis, a San Francisco personal-injury lawyer and former deputy city attorney, noted that the zoo, which was free to the public in 1952, now charges USD11 for adult tickets. "Once you start charging admission, your responsibility to the patrons increases," he said.
 
In addition, it remains subject to the traditional rule that a zookeeper, like a dynamite-hauler or anyone else engaged in what the law classifies as 'ultra-hazardous activities', can be held responsible for injuries caused by those activities even if it did nothing wrong.
 
Also, it shouldn't be hard for a plaintiff suing over the tiger attack to prove that both the city, which designed the zoo and owns the land and animals, and the Zoological Society, which is responsible for day-to-day operations, were negligent.
 
"Based on the facts that have come out, this is a clear-cut case of negligence," said John Diamond, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. He cited the zoo director's admission that the moat wall around the tiger grotto was 4 feet below national safety standards, and 7 1/2 feet shorter than zoo officials had said it was.
 
"There's no excuse for having an enclosure that does not conform to industry standards and allows a wild animal to escape," Diamond told the paper.
 
He said the fact that the same tiger attacked a trainer a year earlier, ripping much of the skin from her arm, would help to show that zoo officials had been aware of a dangerous situation. A state investigation concluded that the zoo was at fault for the attack because of the way the tigers' cages were configured.