If something happens and a person has drugs or alcohol in their system, does that mean they're 100% at fault?

Question

As an example look to the San Fran Zoo Tiger escape and killing. It seems that the city and media has laid all the blame on the killed man and his friends because he had trace amounts of marijuana and alcohol in his system. Is that even relevant to the case? I don't advocate drug use but didn't the tiger get out in large part because the walls were to low? Does this logic apply to prescription drugs too? Or is this just some BS to pass blame?

Answer 1

As a rule, no.

Its not criminally negligent to make faces and mock animals in a zoo, however it is negligent to invite a man into a facility with below standard measures of containing a man eating tiger.

Answer 2

I haven't heard much about this story since it first happened, but I thought I'd read that the guys had sling shots and/or were taunting and throwing things at the tiger. If their judgement was impaired and they did a stupid thing, heck even if they weren't drunk or stoned, if they provoked the tiger then YES, it is there fault.  You say "...didn't the tiger get out in large part because the walls were to low?" Actually... The tiger was only following her natural instincts, she felt threatened-therefore, she reacted. I doubt she was threatened by the "short" wall, her actions were directly caused by the boys' actions.

Answer 3

yes its like being an uninsured driver you may be the best driver in the world but in a accident your first to blame,

Answer 4

It may not matter, but it evens out the liability.  Remember, even if your car is parked in YOUR driveway, and a drunk swerves off of the road and mangles your car, you are still partly liable because your car was there. (I know, stupid as h*ll.)

The defense team for the zoo will bring this up, and quite honestly, an extra four feet wouldn't of been squat for a tiger to clear.