Tiger Attack Could Be Fatal Blow For Zoo

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."

The zoo has been closed since Christmas Day, when the 350-pound Siberian tiger escaped from its enclosure and killed a teenager and severely mauled two other visitors. It is becoming increasingly clear the tiger climbed over a wall that at 12 feet 5 inches was about 4 feet below the recommended minimum for U.S. zoos.

Zoo officials said Friday they planned to reopen the facility on Jan. 3.

The zoo will be required to issue a report about the attacks to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' accreditation commission, which will then decide whether to take any action. The association has issued statements in support of the zoo this week, and CEO Jim Maddy said in a statement Friday the zoo is a member in good standing.

The AZA, which has 216 members, typically inspects and accredits zoos every five years, and on average one facility loses its accreditation each year for not meeting association standards, said spokesman Steve Feldman.

The organization didn't renew the San Francisco Zoo's accreditation in January 2005 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, said USDA spokesman Jim Rogers.

USDA inspectors were sent to the zoo to determine if an investigation is warranted, Rogers said.

"They're going to try to determine how the animal got out and whether that violated our regulations," Rogers said. "A facility must have a sufficient barrier between the viewing public and the animals."

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."

The California Division of Occupational Health and Safety issued a report that found the zoo at fault for Komejan's injuries. The report said zoo officials knew the big-cat exhibit posed a hazard because the animals could reach under the cage bars. The agency fined the zoo $18,000 and ordered safety improvements.

The zoo added customized steel mesh over the bars, built in a feeding chute and increased the distance between the public and the cats.

CBS News affiliate KPIX reporter Simon Perez reports that several San Francisco supervisors are worried about potential lawsuits against the city. A close look at the zoo's lease however, appears to let the city off the hook. Although the families of the victims could sue the city, the lease between the zoo and the city explicitly states that the zoo is ultimately liable for "any injury to or death of any person…in, on or about the Zoo premises."

Komejan's attorney, Michael Mandel, said he sees parallels between Komejan's case and the Christmas Day rampage, when the tiger killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. and mauled his friends Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23.

"In both cases, there were certainly insufficient safeguards to protect both employees and the public," Mandel said.

In the latest attack, Mandel said: "I find it hard to accept the fact that they weren't even aware that the wall didn't meet the standard set by the association. They're not even aware of their own deficiencies."

Three years ago, two elephants died at the zoo, prompting it to remove its remaining elephants to an animal sanctuary. Animal activists complained about conditions at the zoo, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed tough requirements that forced the zoo to extensively refurbish habitats for other animals.

Among the lawsuits that the zoo could face would be those filed by the victims and their families, even if investigators find that the Sousa 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.

Meanwhile late Friday, police released a transcript of dispatch chatter from the night of the attack. The transcript reveals that zoo security briefly made officers wait to enter as zoo employees responded with tranquilizers.

It wasn't clear from the transcript how long police were kept out of the zoo.

Police have never indicated their response was hindered by any delays, and police Chief Heather Fong has praised the response of the officers for their quick action and collaborative work with the zoo staff.

According to the transcript, police were called to investigate a disturbance at 5:08 p.m. The document said at 5:17 p.m., a dispatcher noted zoo security was not letting officers in.

"Zoo personnel have the tiger in sight and are dealing with it," the transcript reads. "The (victim) is inside a cafe at the other side of the zoo."

The transcript does not indicate when the emergency responders were let in, but by 5:20 p.m. the medics had located one victim.

As more emergency responders raced to the scene and medics attended to the victim, at 5:25 p.m. a dispatch that was sent read that an officer had spotted the tiger.

At 5:27 p.m. the officers began firing at the animal.