Search Site
Menu
Harambe, the Gorilla, and the Law of Injuries

It is no surprise to say that personal injury law and personal injury lawyers are not the most favored people or most favored thing in our society. I am proud of what I do. However, I do not feel that the stereotype or cliche fits me or the vast majority of my colleagues. In discussing that frightening incident in the Cincinnati Zoo, perhaps I can suggest to you that not all events result in a case, even though plaintiff lawyers are accused of such.

Let me give you an example from the zoo incident. First of all, fortunately, the child was not physically injured. The child may have some sort of psychological effects from that frightening incident, but there was not, as far as I know, any significant physical injury. Let’s assume just for the sake of discussion, an academic discussion, that the child did sustain a significant physical injury as well as psychological injuries. Let’s evaluate the liability of the potential case.

There are some things that may not be known that would suggest there could be some liability on the zoo. The child was able to climb up on a 3 foot high fence and the fence was not a solid wall, but rather had metal bars. The bars were horizontally placed such that the child could put his feet on them and climb up and over the top bar. That is not the best way to fence in the perimeter of a dangerous animal, I would suggest.

Secondly, there was what we call a subsequent remedial repair so that the fence is now 3 and ½ feet high, a change that evidently came about because of this recent event. We plaintiffs would like to say that that is evidence of negligence but that is not the rule. The rule is clear that the subsequent remedial repair cannot be evidence of negligence. However, it can be used for another purpose, for feasibility or impeachment purposes if controverted. The applicable rule unambiguously mandates that. Without getting overly specific by delving into the rule, the point is sometimes and someway the fact of a repair after the accident can be used. Mostly, though, it will be used for a purpose other than to show negligence. Confusing? Yes, it is.

The zoo also had some issues with polar bears just a few months before. I am not sure, to be candid, of that connection to the incident involving the little boy and the gorilla. If it just means that zoo had been negligent or lax in its security overall, I have some concerns about its admissibility. On the other hand, it can be argued that it put the zoo on notice that better safety precautions should be undertaken. In general, the more you can tie a prior incident to the type of incident that happened, the better chance you have as the party suing.

An important issue to keep in mind, as I have mentioned in the past, is that the parents could be made an additional defendant, or a third-party defendant, in the lawsuit. There is always that specter when a suit involving a child is brought. The zoo as the defendant would argue that the parents or whoever was watching the child was negligent in the supervision of the child. I have to say that that might resonate in this case.

Additionally, the Associated Press reported that there was a federal inspection of the zoo less than two months prior to the incident and the gorilla exhibit was deemed safe. This reminds me of an accident in a building where an occupancy permit was granted. We hear this all the time in premises liability cases. Generally, the response is that inspections and codes only prescribe the bare minimum of conduct. In answer to the very beginning of this blog about personal injury lawyers and the perception of personal injury law, no, not all cases would I take. No, not all cases would respectable and serious lawyers take. If this case came to me, even with significant injuries, I might well hesitate. My concern is over the parental supervision issue. My instinct – no better than anyone else’s – is that the case lends itself to the strong argument that the parents were negligent in their supervision of the child. Sure, the zoo arguably could have done better but that doesn’t necessarily translate to liability.

Feinberg & Alban, P.C. fervently protects your rights
  • The Boston firm of Feinberg & Alban, P.C. specializes its practice in the area of personal injury.

    The attorneys serve the entire state of Massachusetts in addition to affiliating with lawyers in other states to handle cases outside of Massachusetts.

  • $7.7 Million Award for Feinberg & Alban Client in Personal Injury Trial

    Boston Attorneys Win Highest Injury Verdict in Massachusetts in 2011 & 2012.

Client Reviews
  • lawyers
    5.0/5.0

    Большое спасибо сотрудникам компании Feinberg & Alban и особенно Marsha Alban за высокий профессионализм и внимательное отношение к клиентам. Благ...

    Read more

    Client

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    We would recommend Atty. Colleen Santora and the entire team at Feinberg & Alban highly. We had a major auto accident in 2012 and my husband also at a bad motorcycle accident as well four years after. We have always relied on her, She is a class act ...

    Read more

    Kyle Meahl

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Attorney Feinberg is an excellent attorney with top level trial skills. He has given invaluable insight and knowledge on cases at trial that only an attorney of his caliber and experience could provide. I would highly recommend him and his staff.

    Read more

    Jeremy Carroll

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I highly recommend this law firm to anybody in need of a excellent Attorney. Colleen is very responsive as well as friendly and caring!! I had a great experience working with her an as i mentioned above i would recommend her office.

    Read more

    Keri Pait

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Marsha was experienced, very helpful and thorough. Absolutely wonderful to work with! I would highly recommend her and this firm to anyone!

    Read more

    Tedrina R

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form