Constant Readers,
Today's post is very important.
Today is my birthday.
And that's not what makes it important.
No, today is special because it marks the last day I will ever reveal my true age. (Bookmark it y'all, cause I'll be lying with a straight face like Clinton from here on out.) As a Southern Woman, I am already well past the time I was supposed to start fibbing, but, as with everything else, I am a bit of a late bloomer. At 17, my cousins in Alabama started asking me if I have children. (Not that I know of.) At 19, whether I am married. (Not that I know of.) At 22, whether I have ever been married. (Eff off, hillbillies.)
Since my brother tells me that my smart-assed and contemptuous answers have led my cousins to believe that I am a lesbian, I anticipate that this year's questions will be about the WNBA. And menopause.
Because y'all, I am thirty-two today.
Oh, how it pains me to type that.
But, alas, my tragedy is not the most serious of late. On this day that I crouch toward Cougardom, it seems more fitting to discuss Tatiana the Tiger. Spots and I agree that our homette deserves a tip from all fortys.
So much has been discussed about this case - we all waited breathlessly (ok - at least I did) as the City Attorney demanded to search the car of Amritpal and Kulbir Dhaliwal, who, between them in 2007 had been arrested for 3 counts of public intoxication, 3 counts of resisting arrest, 1 count of misdemeanor battery, underage drinking, reckless driving, DUI, and giving a false name to police (younger brother tried to claim he was older brother). The car was a black BMW M3. (Nice work, parents.) The boys' attorney and Guiltybastard Expert Mark Geragos, said Hell to the No. And a Judge in Santa Clara agreed, but before he could rule, the SFPD was all, "Um, we were closing the case but suddenly we have probable cause to search the car...Probable cause for what, you ask?...Er, that there is a cause that probably we should search the car to help out the City Attorney's case." And evidence of douchebaggery (not to mention history's most pathetic use of a day off) was indeed found: vodka and the devil's weed.
Despite the SFPD’s bullshit-filled claims that taunting a tiger is a misdemeanor, no charges were ever filed by the SFPD and the case was closed. But the dispute over the search of the car revealed the legal heart of the case: Geragos said that there is no need to search the car because the boys’ actions are irrelevant. The City Attorney’s Office disagreed. In this post, I am gonna try to explain why they are both kinda right. And why they are both a little wrong, too.
Who is responsible when your tiger goes tiger?
Let’s start with Geragos’ theory that the Dhaliwal brothers’ actions don’t matter for legal purposes. What he is referring to is the legal doctrine of “strict liability.” What that means is that there are some “ultrahazerdous activities” that are so crazy, dangerous and stupid that anyone endeavoring to do them is 100% liable for ANYTHING that happens. Even if that includes drunk-assed wankers belting out “Eye of the Tiger” at a 250-pound feline.
I think the great legal scholar Chris Rock said it best:
"The whole world's going crazy, man. Siegfried and Roy. The tiger bit the man in the head. And everybody's mad at the tiger. Talk about, 'The tiger went crazy.' That tiger ain't go crazy; that tiger went tiger!" - Chris Rock, Never Scared (2004)(clip here at 1:20).
Now there are two ways for Geragos to use the “strict liability” theory: (1) since owning a “wild animal” (which expressly includes tigers) is automatically considered an “ultrahazerdous activity” he could go after the owner of the animals – the City of San Francisco. (See jury instructions at the bottom of the page.) However, California State law exempts cities from “common law” claims like strict liability. (Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 815.) Or, (2) Geragos could try to convince a court that the San Francisco Zoological Society (SFZS), by endeavoring to be responsible for the tiger in a public place, where a tiger can Go Tiger, was engaged in an “ulatrahazerdous activity” even though the SFZS is not the owner of the animals.
Score: City Attorney=1; SFZS=0.5; Geragos=0.5.
In the next Tiger post, we’ll get into the traditional negligence issues raised by this case. For now, I am off to celebrate with one of my closest friends and her family. Who have been a second family to me since I was 14. Braces, mullet and all. On second thought, maybe those weren’t the Good Old Days.
--Melissa
I missed it by a few years. I thought you were 25. r.s.
Posted by: R.S | February 10, 2008 at 11:00