The injured in the tiger injury case claimed 2.18 million, and the zoo should pay money if the tiger

The question of whether the zoo should lose money depends on how much responsibility the zoo should bear and the social responsibility that the zoo itself is willing to assume.

The tigers are dead, so what do you need to lose?

As a rare animal of the country, the life of the tiger is also very precious. And it is the nature of tigers to eat people to prey on prey, tigers in their own homeland, eat humans as invaders, and tigers themselves have paid the price of their lives, and they have indeed died unjustly!

Who pays for the tiger's life? Who pays for the zoo's losses? And who pays for the country's losses?

When it comes to racial strife, human life is more important than the life of a tiger!

Nature may be so cruel that humans are willing to protect wild animals when they don't endanger human lives, but when it comes to their own lives, it can only be tigers that need to make sacrifices.

Natural selection, survival of the fittest"This is not only the reason why not only the human race, but also all the existing animal races have survived to this day! <>

If the zoo is indeed mismanaged or out of humanitarianism, it is reasonable to compensate the ** person to some extent.

Of course, it is definitely the person concerned who gets off the bus without permission in the tiger park, and if the investigation proves that there are indeed loopholes in the management of the zoo, it is bound to bear some responsibility. Even if the zoo is not responsible, it is reasonable to compensate the ** out of sympathy for the weak, or out of humanitarianism.

Of course, if the person concerned shirks the responsibility and puts all the responsibility for the consequences caused by his impulsiveness and recklessness to the zoo, it must not be tolerated and connived.

After all,"There are no rules, there are no rules"！No way"Take the benefits of the world to yourself, and the harm of the world to others"！

I don't think you should lose money, as we all know, it is forbidden to get out of the car in the beast area, because it can be attacked by beasts at any time and anywhere, and the injured person got out of the car without permission despite this regulation, which led to the death of his mother and his own injury, and from this point of view, the injured person needs to take full responsibility for his actions. <>

As one of the endangered species, tigers did not hesitate to shoot tigers in order to save the injured, which also had a great impact on the ecological balance, if they were not treated well, we might only be able to see them on computers and books in the future, and exchange a life of a tiger for a life for her life, I think it is actually worth it. <>

As the person responsible for the ability to act, since you have done something, you must be responsible for what you have done. Her behavior is like a person touching porcelain on the side of the road, if she doesn't get out of the car according to the regulations, waiting for the car to leave the zoo, in fact, there is nothing, but she doesn't believe in this evil, and when he was interviewed, she was still constantly shirking responsibility, saying that the zoo has no signs and said that this part is very dangerous. I think this sentence is actually biased.

In fact, everyone knows that entering the safari park is very dangerous, so you are generally allowed to drive in, or do their sightseeing car, and you will be forbidden to get out of the car, because everyone knows that wild animals will attack humans, and the injured themselves have not done a good job of protection, so they don't understand. <>

What the? Is the tiger dead? Executed for biting?

If that's the case, the biting tiger is unlucky. If the tiger dies, should the zoo still lose money? It should still be compensated, after all, the zoo has the responsibility and obligation to protect the safety of visitors, and it still has to bear some responsibility.

However, the zoo has stated that it will compensate for humanitarian reasons. <>

As for whether compensation should be made, I will give an analogy, I don't know whether it is appropriate or not. If someone is bitten by a dog, the owner should compensate for it. If it can be proved that the damage was caused intentionally or by gross negligence on the part of the bite, the owner may not bear or reduce the liability.

Is it the same thing that a zoo-bred tiger bites a person? Can we understand that the person being bitten and his mother was killed was caused by the gross negligence of the person who "did not follow the rules and got out of the car without permission"? In this case, the park can reduce the liability or not take responsibility, and the compensation for humanitarian reasons is reasonable, as the park said.

But now the bitten party accuses the park of being at fault because of the problem of setting up the reminder board and the treatment measures for the injured. This can't blame netizens for questioning her suspicion of "relying on her mother to make money". As for the signs, the park must have them, any regular zoo will have them, and people know the rules that prohibit getting off the bus, and no one dares to get off the bus casually.

Even if the park sign is not reasonable, it is not a reason for visitors to get off the bus without permission. <>

In terms of treatment measures for the injured, in the same way, if no one gets out of the car and no one gets hurt, isn't there no such problem, should the zoo always be ready to treat the bitten visitors? Who would dare to go to such a zoo? And the insurance company that works with the zoo said that the tourists who were bitten did not buy the accident insurance.

Therefore, no matter how you look at this case, it is a tragedy caused by the tourists themselves, and they also took their mother's life, should they pay money, the zoo has promised to compensate, it is really humanitarian. The negotiation was fruitless, so I had to meet in court.

The tiger injury case was tried in Yanqing ** today, and the injured party demanded 1.56 million yuan in compensation from the zoo! In fact, whether the injured tiger dies or not, the zoo should not lose money! Because it was you who ignored the rules of the safari park prohibiting getting off the bus, causing one death and one injury to your own family, why should you ask the park to compensate you?

In this matter, the park has done a very good job of preaching in advance or setting up signs in the park. Because your stupidity has been damaged, okay? Not to mention the loss of a tiger, but also closed the park for many days for the so-called rectification, all because of your willfulness.

You're good, and you're still playing the victim, why don't you go to heaven?

Before **, the kindergarten had already paid for the medical expenses of the deceased's daughter out of morality. Taking a step back, the park doesn't bear this part of the money, and you have nothing to say, it's not people's responsibility in the first place! You keep saying that you are responsible and you will take it, and the park should also take their responsibility?

I really don't know what responsibilities the kindergarten should bear.

The husband of the deceased kept saying: We don't care about compensation, we need an attitude of apology. I have refreshed the three views again, I don't care about compensation, do you want people to compensate you for more than one million?

When xx still wants to set up a memorial arch? If you don't care about compensation, then you want other celebrities to fight honorary lawsuits, and the symbolic amount is 1 yuan. Let everyone see your determination.

I don't know what kind of attitude you want from the garden, do you want your family to dress your wife in linen and filial piety? The zoo is also unlucky enough to meet a strange scoundrel like you! It looks like they won't stop without removing a layer of skin from the zoo!

This kind of person who has no social morality and does not abide by the rules and regulations will be unlucky in the future.

<> the dead are great! This is a common phenomenon in Chinese society, even if the other party is an unreasonable villain, but as long as the person dies, the living should pay for his death.

If you don't believe it, let's take a look at the death of the old man at Badaling Zoo. Obviously, her daughter and her husband got angry and quarreled, and then ignored the warning of the zoo that they were not allowed to get out of the car and walk around at will, which attracted the carnivore, the big tiger. The old man saw that his daughter was trapped in the tiger's mouth, and the woman was heartbroken, and then added mistakes and mistakes, and ignored the iron rules of the zoo, and got out of the car to rescue, but the poor tiger did not understand the true feelings of the world, and only knew that the fresh meat delivered to the door must be eaten.

Tigers eat meat, it is the nature of animals, aside from the tiger in the safari park, it is a domesticated performance tiger, the tiger trainer gets along with it day and night, and the grace and power are not able to reduce the tragic situation of the tiger suddenly turning its face one day and ruthlessly burying itself under the tiger's mouth, not to mention, it is a stranger who you rashly intrude into my domain?

Before hurting people, the tiger is innocent, and it is also a guest of honor in the zoo, eating and drinking well, but once the tiger hurts people, no matter who is responsible, the tiger can not continue to live, and it does not matter if the tiger is an endangered and cherished protected animal.

But what about tigers? What law did it break? It is in its own daily vertical and horizontal territory, see the living creatures, think that the breeder feeds, gladly accept, may I ask the tiger what is the crime?

It's a pity that the tiger can't speak, so it can only be an outlet for everyone to vent their anger, and it also destroys everyone's thoughts of condemning him together.

But the tiger died, and the matter was over. Not only do the wicked sue first, but the wicked have to settle accounts later. obviously did something wrong, but far-fetched said that he didn't want the old man to die like this, and he wanted to live better.

Yes, you have to live better, you have to learn to control your emotions, no longer lose your temper casually, no longer disobey all kinds of discipline and rules and regulations, violate them at will, no longer be unreasonable for this matter, vicious claims, if you go on like this, what will the other tigers do? What about zoos? What about the thousands of law-abiding tourists?

Let's go, it's better to mourn, and then think about your own life path, instead of thinking about money and claiming millions!

Whether you lose money or not, you can't see whether the tiger is dead or not, it's to see if the zoo, the manager of the tiger, is responsible.

Tigers eat people as a matter of course, and so do tourists, and so do zoos. Although the tigers in the zoo are bred in captivity, their nature will not be extinguished, and they will inevitably pounce and bite other animals within their attack range.

There are many reports of tigers hurting people, and tigers not only hurt tourists, but sometimes keepers are accidentally injured by tigers, or even killed by tigers. In 2001, a keeper at the Kunming Zoo was bitten to death by a tiger, and in 2013, a keeper at the Shanghai Zoo was bitten to death by a tiger; In May 2017, a female keeper at a zoo in the United Kingdom was killed red-handed by a tiger.

Tigers bite even their keepers, because tigers are animals after all, and it is their nature to prey on other animals.

Therefore, zoos will take some preventive measures, such as isolation, reminders, and equipped with rescue personnel, and take corresponding measures to prevent animals from hurting people as much as possible.

In the Badaling Zoo injury incident, the zoo staff not only verbally informed the self-driving tourists who entered the beast area that it was strictly forbidden to get off the car, it was strictly forbidden to feed and other matters, and issued a "six strict prohibition notice" (it is strictly forbidden to open windows, it is strictly forbidden to get out of the car, it is strictly forbidden to feed food, it is strictly forbidden to carry pets, it is strictly forbidden to use fire in the wild, and it is strictly forbidden to drive after drinking and heart attack), but also if the tourists signed the "Self-driving Tour Car Damage Liability Agreement". Therefore, the park has fulfilled its responsibility to inform, and the announced investigation conclusion of the incident is not a safety production accident.

In the Badaling animal injury case, the injured person sued the zoo in court, claiming 1.56 million yuan, including medical expenses, lost work expenses, etc., as well as compensation for the mother who was bitten to death.

Will the zoo lose money, and how much? The court will make a judgment based on the division and determination of responsibilityBut in the course of the trial, the lawyers of both sides will definitely defend their clients-for-tat.

It remains to be seen how the court will ultimately decide on the peace.

Tigers are not human beings, and no matter how they deal with tigers, they cannot change the determination of human responsibility. In ancient times, there was a saying that "the hatred of killing the father is not shared with the sky", and "one life pays one life", but if the ** is replaced by an animal today, can this statement still calm the inner order?

No matter what the tiger does with it, or what it does to people, the life that has been lost can never be returned, and the damage that has been done can never be restored. This incident caused heated discussions on the Internet, and the victim Ms. Zhao was almost one-sided verbally criticized on the Internet, and everyone thought that he did not listen to the dissuasion and insisted on getting out of the car, and as a result, he also filed a claim of about 2 million, which was simply blackmail and slander.

Ms. Zhang believes that the zoo is not doing a good enough job in safety measures and should be responsible. I wondered, why did Ms. Zhao dare to get out of the car? Is it because she believes that the zoo will protect her safety, so she disregards the contract and dissuasion to get off the bus in the beast area, is there any fear?

Her boldness, she dared to get out of the car safety misjudgment, but the result was wrong, in front of the beast, any slightest illusion may pay a heavy price for life.

The zoo believes that it has done all the reminders, but the tourists themselves do not listen to the dissuasion, and the zoo is not responsible, and at most make some humanitarian compensation. I also think this is too arbitrary, you as a zoo should really protect the interests of customers to the greatest extent, if just a reminder is enough, it is too simple, too not to take life seriously. There are tourists getting off the bus in the beast area, which has happened from time to time at home and abroad, so hasn't the zoo considered how to plan for this situation?

For example, anesthetizing animals, etc., if the zoo is not responsible at all, I personally don't agree with it. I think zoos are entirely responsible, and they should think about what they will do if something like this happens next time. Whether it is better able to protect the passenger, although this passenger is capricious.