O.K. the experts say that yelling and waving hands at a tiger likely wouldn’t be enough to provoke it to attack. Even throwing rocks wouldn’t necessarily cause the cat to leave its home and track down a taunter. You would have to hit it in the face or poke it repeatedly. Urinating
would provoke it, too.
While there is no evidence that the boys involved in the tiger attack hit the cat in the face or poked it or even urinated it, it is possible that a jury would assign them a portion of fault for waving and yelling. That’s called comparative fault under California Law and even thought the owner of the Tiger is strictly liable for the injuries it inflicted this comparative fault element could be significant. The reason it is significant is because the jury in a civil case is first asked to determine how much the damages are to the plaintiff. So, for example in this case let’s say the damages are $1,000,000.00. In a separate question the jury is asked what portion of fault, if any, does the plaintiff have for the attack. If the jury is convinced that the plaintiff brought the attack on themselves they could assign 99% comparative fault. The judge would then reduce the $1,000,000.00 by 99% leaving $10,000.00. That’s a huge reduction.
For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Premises Liability.