Considering Strict Liability, how would you rule in this case? Why?$-$"The tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo has raised concerns about the plaintiffs' conduct, with reports suggesting that the two brothers may have taunted the tiger, stood on the railings, and were intoxicated during the incident. Toxicology tests revealed that Paul Dhaliwal had a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit for driving, while Kulbir Dhaliwal and Carlos Sousa Jr$.$ also had alcohol and marijuana in their systems.

The zoo's liability is being questioned due to a lower wall separating the public from the tiger enclosure, which is nearly $6$ feet lower than initially reported and $4$ feet below industry standards. The dry moat between the wall and the tiger exhibit is $33$ feet, but the wall itself is only $12\mathrm{.}5$ feet, not $18$ feet as previously stated.

Experts are skeptical about the theory that the tiger leaped out of the enclosure, suggesting that the lower wall might have made such a feat unforeseeable and unprecedented, potentially reducing the zoo's liability. Zoo attacks are not uncommon, with the National Zoo in Washington experiencing a similar incident just a year prior.

Under common law, possessors are strictly liable for injuries caused by their wild animals. However, many states have enacted special legislation to protect zoos from strict liability, often reverting to a negligence standard. In a related case from $1952,$ a state court ruled that strict liability would not apply to a man mauled by a bear at the same zoo.

The zoo's history of a previous attack by the same tiger in $2006$ and insufficient lighting and confusion during emergency response may further complicate matters. The new allegations could potentially raise a strong defense in a negligence case, especially if California's pure comparative fault rule is applied.

Final Answer: The tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo may be attributed to the plaintiffs' conduct, as they reportedly taunted the tiger, stood on the railings, and were intoxicated. The zoo's liability is being questioned due to a lower wall separating the public from the tiger enclosure, which is below industry standards. The incident has raised concerns about the application of strict liability and negligence standards in cases involving wild animals in public spaces."