It’s August — the season of county fairs and carnivals. Go on, visit them.
But watch where you put your hands — especially if they have a zebra.
Now, you might not expect that there has ever been even one court American court decision involving a zebra. But as things turn out, there are at least two.
The earliest one arose in Massachusetts, when four different people brought claims for personal injuries and property damage against several defendants. The eventual court decision is a little vague about this, but given that the names of the defendants included “Animal Fair,” “Palace Amusement Corp.,” and “Eastern States Exposition,” it seems a safe bet the zebra came from some kind of circus or traveling fair.
The matter started on the morning of September 16, 1960 when a member of the West Springfield, Massachusetts police force spotted — no, wait, that’s not the best word — observed a zebra running down one of the city’s streets. It must have been one of those “Did I just see what I thought I saw?” moments, but if so, the officer recovered quickly and followed the animal, which ran through an open gate into a nearby manufacturing plant.
The zebra was described as “very jumpy and running a great deal and every once in a while would kick like a mule.” (Actually, it would have kicked like a zebra, but . . . never mind.) Because the zebra had no halter or other means of restraining it, the officer managed to get a rope around its neck, and some of the employees of the plant created a makeshift “cage” out of 50-gallon drums. A veterinarian was summoned and eventually gave the zebra a tranquilizer, after which it was returned to the fairgrounds — presumably to rethink some of its life choices.
Some of the employees at the plant sued for personal injuries amounting to several thousand dollars — not small change in 1960. The owners of the zebra admitted it was their animal, but argued that they shouldn’t be held liable. But the lower court found them liable, and the defendants appealed.
The court of appeal helpfully found that “a zebra is to be classed as a wild animal as distinct from a domestic animal.” (That’s why we have courts — to make those kinds of tough calls.) The distinction is important, however, because the owner of a wild animal is “strictly liable” for injuries or damages caused by the animal.
This means that if it really is a wild animal, and it causes injuries, then ordinarily there are really only two questions: how much were the damages? And where do we send the check? Still, by dragging out the case and appealing, the defendants managed to hold off the day of reckoning by more than six years.
The other case, which originated in Colorado, is unfortunately a lot less pleasant to read about. Five year-old Denise Kennedy was at the City Park Zoo in Denver. (The dates are a little unclear, but as there had been an earlier appeal decided in 1970, the incident must have occurred in the late 1960s.) The Zoo’s pen for zebras had a low retaining wall over which visitors could feed the zebras directly out of their hands.
On the day in question, Denise was lying on top of the retaining wall and reaching over the side, joining with some other children feeding the zebras. Her mother held onto her skirt to keep her from falling. While Denise was hanging there, a zebra — apparently confused about the difference between carrots and fingers — chomped down on one of Denise’s. When her mother realized what had happened, she reached over the railing and smacked the zebra on the head. The zebra retreated, sadly taking one of Denise’s fingers with it.
The Zoo asked for the case to be dismissed, and the trial court agreed. But the court of appeal found that because of her young age, Denise could not be found responsible for her own injuries — she was, in effect, too young to be careless. The surprising part of the decision was that the court concluded that her parents could not be liable, either — even though Denise was only able to reach the zebra with her mother’s help by dangling over the wall.
This didn’t mean that she would necessarily win — but it did mean that the Zoo was potentially responsible based on having constructed the enclosure so that people could feed the zebras in the first place. The court sent the case back for a new trial, after which it presumably settled — perhaps for a lifetime supply of zoo passes.
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
Hence then, the article about judicial follies a different stripe was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judicial Follies: A different stripe )
Also on site :
- Skier dies in collision with tree at Colorado’s Aspen Mountain, resort officials confirm
- Tornado warning issued, and quickly cancelled, over Alhambra
- Governor Hochul: Annual statewide donation drive is complete