SAN FRANCISCO — The deadly tiger escape at the San Francisco Zoo could prove to be a costly blow to an institution that has come under fire repeatedly in just the past few years over the deaths of two elephants and the mauling of a zookeeper.
The zoo could face heavy fines from regulators. It could be stripped of its exhibitor license. Its accreditation could be at risk. It could be hit with a huge lawsuit by the victims or their families. It could even face criminal charges, depending on what the investigation finds.
“All this legal action is likely to impact the financial viability of the zoo,” said Rory Little, a professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. “Whether the zoo can stay open is a big question.”
It is becoming clear that a 350-pound Siberian tiger that killed a teenager and severely mauled two other visitors in a Christmas Day rampage climbed over a wall that at 121/2 feet was about 4 feet below the recommended minimum for U.S. zoos.
The American Zoo and Aquarium Association, which typically accredits zoos every five years and set the height standard, did not immediately return calls Friday. It has in previously released statements this week stood by the zoo, saying it is a member in good standing.
The organization, however, has declined to renew the zoo’s accreditation before. In January 2005, the zoo lost its accreditation after a three-day inspection found a number of operational and maintenance problems. The zoo eventually received full accreditation in March 2006 after the AZA found the problems had been corrected.
San Francisco Zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo said the AZA never noted any deficiencies with the wall around the tiger enclosure.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which is responsible for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, also could impose penalties, including fines, or suspend or revoke the zoo’s exhibitor license if it is found that the zoo violated federal regulations on animal enclosures. Mollinedo said Thursday inspectors from the department had visited the zoo.
San Francisco Zoo officials said Friday night they plan to reopen the zoo on Jan. 3.
Legal experts said lawsuits are also likely. Already, the zoo is facing a lawsuit by zookeeper Lori Komejan, who was attacked last year when she fed the same tiger involved in the deadly escape. The animal mauled her arm.
In October, Komejan sued the city of San Francisco, seeking compensation for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional distress. She accused the city, which owns the zoo property, of “housing the tigers with reckless disregard for the safety of animal handlers and members of the general public.”
Among the lawsuits that the zoo could face would be those filed by the victims and their families, even if investigators find that the victim and his friends had provoked the tiger or ignored warnings not to taunt the animals, Little said.
“Inevitably, there are going to be lawsuits filed,” Little said. “Even if they provoked the tiger, a reasonable person would believe that the tiger could not escape. That’s what you count on when you go to the zoo. You count on the idea that the animals cannot reach you.”
It is also possible that the zoo could face criminal charges of negligent homicide if the investigation finds the zoo contributed to the death and injuries of the victims, he said.
The two surviving victims could also be charged with a crime if they are found to have caused or contributed to Sousa’s death, even unintentionally, he said.