It is reported that the incident occurred in the Northeast Tiger Park in the beast area of the park. According to the surveillance video of the day, in the driveway of go on road trip, a young woman got off the co-pilot of the car and walked to the driver's seat. The driver opened the car door and the two started talking. Suddenly, a tiger suddenly rushed behind the woman, and the woman retreated.
I was bitten by a tiger in an instant and quickly dragged back. When the driver saw it, he got off the bus to rescue him, and then a woman in the back seat rushed off the bus to rescue him.
It is understood that at present, seriously injured young women are out of danger, but the possibility of infection is not ruled out. The woman who got off the bus to rescue is her mother. Unfortunately, my mother was killed by another tiger on the spot.
2.
Assuming that the premise is established, that is, based on video (regardless of subsequent reports for the time being), we can clearly draw the conclusion that the tourists' own behavior is the main cause of the accident. (tourist perspective)
3.
Landscape perspective: this is also my most controversial place. That is, should the garden be responsible? If so, what are the reasons? How responsible are you? If it is an exemption, what are the reasons? Then the question comes: how should the garden avoid or reduce the probability of similar incidents?
Q: Should the garden be responsible?
A 1: legal perspective (from People's Republic of China (PRC) Tort Liability Law)
Chapter 10
Liability for damage caused by raising animals
Article 12 1
Exempt and reduce the responsibility for damage caused by raising animals.
Article 78 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates that "it can be proved that the damage was caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringer, and the responsibility may not be borne or mitigated", which means that if the animals raised by the infringer intentionally or grossly cause their own damage, the exemption or mitigation of responsibility shall be determined according to the causal relationship between the intentional or gross negligence of the infringer. If the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed person is the whole cause of the damage, the animal keeper shall be exempted from liability; If the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed party is the same cause of the damage, the liability shall be mitigated.
If the infringer is at fault, the infringer's liability for compensation shall not be reduced or exempted.
Article 123
Reduction of animal responsibility in zoos.
According to the provisions of Article 81 of the Tort Liability Law, the presumption of fault should be applied to determine the animal damage liability of the zoo. If the infringer is also at fault for the occurrence or expansion of the damage, the principle of fault offset shall be applied to reduce the compensation liability of the zoo.
Well, as a layman in law, the "infringed person" here can be understood as a tourist, and the infringer is a tiger (or garden). We can know that according to Article 12 1 of Tort Liability Law, it depends on the reason of tourists' "death" to decide whether to exempt or reduce their responsibilities. So is it the whole reason or the same reason? According to the news, tourists getting off the bus privately is the starting point of this tragedy. Then why did she get off the bus privately?
Answer 1: The client mistakenly thought that he had left the tiger area. Assuming this is true, does the garden have the obligation to remind the parties? Of course there is. But the garden can't always warn you not to get off. Moreover, its warning signs in the park can also be regarded as the performance of obligations.
Answer 2: The party concerned got off the bus because of a dispute with others.
Answer 3: Others (if any)
To sum up, tourists should take full responsibility for their own damage caused by their own gross negligence, and the garden is exempt from liability.