👀
Torts • Strict Liability
TORT#068
Legal Definition
An owner of wild animals or livestock is strictly liable for any harm caused to a plaintiff that is the kind caused by the wildness of the animal, unless they are a public zookeeper.
Plain English Explanation
Animals are a unique form of personal property because they have the ability to roam and interact with the world around them. As a result, the law expects an animal's owner to make sure their animals do not cause harm to others. On exams, this generally comes up with issues surrounding farm animals and you will have to identify (or argue) how the harm that was caused was "reasonably foreseeable." For example, cows and horses eat a lot of plant material and, if a fence breaks and lets them onto a neighboring farm, it is likely that they will eat whatever they find. It's also foreseeable that large animals can cause large amounts of damage by pushing and shoving. The foreseeable harm may also be related to the nature of the animal. For example, if one farmer raises foxes and their neighbor raises chickens, it is foreseeable that if the foxes escaped into the neighbor's land, they could kill the chickens.
Note that an exception to strict liability for keeping animals is being a public zookeeper. The reason for this is that public zookeepers provide a public value and utility for their actions of keeping animals, so the law requires negligence to be shown in order to find them liable for harm caused by their animals.
Note that an exception to strict liability for keeping animals is being a public zookeeper. The reason for this is that public zookeepers provide a public value and utility for their actions of keeping animals, so the law requires negligence to be shown in order to find them liable for harm caused by their animals.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam runs a public zoo. One day, he purchases a lion for the zoo. Bob is Sam's neighbor, who is jealous that Sam gets to play with a lion. To one-up Sam, Bob buys a tiger and keeps it in a cage in the backyard of his home. One day, a violent storm rolls through the town and destroys Sam's lion cage and Bob's tiger cage. Both animals get out and find Amy walking alone down the street. The lion bites her in the arm, while the tiger bites her in the leg. Result: Amy will have no case against Sam for strict liability because Sam is a public zookeeper. She may try to bring a case against him for negligence, but will fail because the lion got out due to an act of nature. However, Amy will have a case against Bob for strict liability because Bob chose to keep a wild animal and his tiger biting Amy is the type of harm that a wild tiger on the loose is expected to cause.
Hypo 2: Same fact pattern as Hypo 1, except instead of buying a tiger, Bob buys a monkey. After the storm, when the monkey gets free, he runs over to Amy's house, breaks into her car, hotwires the ignition, drives it to the grocery store, fills it with bananas, and heads to Mexico. Result: Amy will have no strict liability claim against Bob for her damages and stolen vehicle because it is not the type of harm generally expected from a wild monkey. A bite, or even flinging poop? Sure. But grand theft auto? No.
Hypo 2: Same fact pattern as Hypo 1, except instead of buying a tiger, Bob buys a monkey. After the storm, when the monkey gets free, he runs over to Amy's house, breaks into her car, hotwires the ignition, drives it to the grocery store, fills it with bananas, and heads to Mexico. Result: Amy will have no strict liability claim against Bob for her damages and stolen vehicle because it is not the type of harm generally expected from a wild monkey. A bite, or even flinging poop? Sure. But grand theft auto? No.
