Question

He advises me to stand back from the cage, because in Toronto one of the tigers borrowed from the Toronto Zoo injured a customer. Apparently, the customer told Dave that he has incurred $15,000 of medical costs related to the incident and that he thinks, morally, TTC owes him and should pay for these costs. The employee says, "I hope that Dave adjusted the insurance policy for the presence of animals. Maybe the Toronto Zoo is responsible and not TTC, because it was their animal. Who knows?

Answer 1

The question involves legal liability and insurance matters concerning an injury by a borrowed tiger from the Toronto Zoo, where the fault may lie with the zoo or the borrower depending upon specific details of the case.

Step-by-step explanation:

The subject of the question touches on issues related to insurance, liability, and legal responsibility in the context of an injury caused by an animal borrowed from a zoo. In legal terms, determining who is liable—the Toronto Zoo or TTC (presumably a party that borrowed the tiger)—depends on various factors such as the ownership of the tiger, the conditions of the loan agreement, and the specifics of the insurance policy held by TTC. If the Toronto Zoo knew the tiger was dangerous and didn't adequately warn TTC, the zoo might be liable. However, if TTC neglected to take proper safety measures or ignored warnings, TTC could be considered negligent. In either case, without more information, a definitive answer cannot be provided, but these are some considerations that would be evaluated when determining responsibility.