👀
Torts • Strict Liability
TORT#067
Legal Definition
A domestic animal's owner is strictly liable for any harm caused, so long as the owner knows or has reason to know of their animal's vicious tendencies.
Plain English Explanation
First, what is a "Domestic animal"? Domestic animals are pets, like dogs, cats, birds, or even iguanas. They are animals kept for the purpose of their company and enjoyment rather than their economic value, which live in the same home as their owner. That being said, more often than not, it applies to dogs or cats. Where an exam includes any other type of animal, they may be trying to trick you and you should briefly explain why it qualifies. For example, a pig that lives in someone's house as a therapy pet may qualify as a domestic animal and not livestock.
Second, after you've identified the type of animal, you need to look at what kind of harm the animal caused and whether or not its owner knew or had reason to know that the animal would cause that type of harm. Where the kind of harm is violent, and the owner knows or should know that their animal has a tendency to be violent, then the owner is liable for the harm. Otherwise, they are not.
Note that just because someone is not strictly liable doesn't mean they aren't liable. Strict liability is just an easier way to establish liability when it applies; when it doesn't apply, look for which type of liability might.
Second, after you've identified the type of animal, you need to look at what kind of harm the animal caused and whether or not its owner knew or had reason to know that the animal would cause that type of harm. Where the kind of harm is violent, and the owner knows or should know that their animal has a tendency to be violent, then the owner is liable for the harm. Otherwise, they are not.
Note that just because someone is not strictly liable doesn't mean they aren't liable. Strict liability is just an easier way to establish liability when it applies; when it doesn't apply, look for which type of liability might.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob owns a bird and a dog. The dog is generally aggressive and defensive of his owner, Bob. He growls at everyone who walks by and, on occasion, has attempted to bite people who come to visit Bob. One day, Bob invites Sam over for dinner. The moment that Sam enters Bob's house, his dog rushes over to Sam, smells him, wags his tail in excitement, and jumps up on Sam for affection, causing Sam to fall over and hurt his leg. Result: Fooled you, didn't I? You thought Sam was going to get bit, but instead, he got puppy love. Here, Bob may be liable for Sam's injury because it occurred on his property as a result of his dog, but it is not a strict liability issue because the dog was not being violent and this action did not fall into the pattern of his "vicious tendencies".
Hypo 2: Same fact pattern as Hypo 1, except when Sam enters the house the dog immediately rushes Sam, leaps at him, and violently rips into Sam's leg with his teeth. In the excitement, Bob's bird freaks out, flies down, and begins pecking and scratching at Sam's face. Result: Bob is strictly liable for the harm caused by his dog, because he knew of the dog's violent behavior and should have known it was possible that he would attack a stranger in the house. However, Bob is not strictly liable for the harm caused by his bird, because he had no reason to know or expect that his bird would freak out and join in on the attack.
Hypo 2: Same fact pattern as Hypo 1, except when Sam enters the house the dog immediately rushes Sam, leaps at him, and violently rips into Sam's leg with his teeth. In the excitement, Bob's bird freaks out, flies down, and begins pecking and scratching at Sam's face. Result: Bob is strictly liable for the harm caused by his dog, because he knew of the dog's violent behavior and should have known it was possible that he would attack a stranger in the house. However, Bob is not strictly liable for the harm caused by his bird, because he had no reason to know or expect that his bird would freak out and join in on the attack.
Related Concepts
What are valid defenses to strict liability?
What elements are required for a strict liability case?
When assessing strict liability, when is an activity abnormally dangerous?
When is an owner liable for harm caused by their livestock and wild animals?
When is an owner liable for their trespassing animals?
