Also known as:abnormally dangerous propensity · vicious propensities
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A characteristic of a domestic animal that deviates from the norm for its class and poses unusual risk of harm. The possessor who knows or has reason to know of the characteristic faces strict liability for injuries that flow directly from it.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Known Snap Triggers Liability
Alfred Ashford kept his border collie mix at work sites after the dog had growled and snapped at an intern three weeks earlier. When Ariana Azizi approached the team to discuss access, the unleashed dog lunged and bit her leg. The bite resulted directly from the aggressive reaction Alfred had previously observed.
Isolated Lunge Does Not Qualify
Adam Anderson kept his adult male bulldog in a warehouse after the dog had lunged once at a forklift operator months earlier. During a quiet lunch period he removed the muzzle and the dog charged and bit a visiting contractor. The single non-contact lunge did not establish an abnormally dangerous propensity of which Adam had reason to know.
Put it into practice
Test Yourself
10
Practice Questions5
· 2 sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Casebooks
Allen v. Cox285 Conn. 603, 942 A.2d 296 (2008)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What knowledge standard satisfies the requirement for abnormally dangerous propensities?+
The possessor must have actual knowledge or reason to know based on prior observed conduct that would alert a reasonable person to an abnormal risk. A single stressful incident confined to unique circumstances often fails this standard.
Supporting sources
Does prior non-biting aggression establish an abnormally dangerous propensity?+
Prior lunging or snapping without contact may or may not suffice depending on frequency, context, and whether the possessor treated it as abnormal. Courts weigh the animal's overall history against the specific prior acts.
Supporting sources
Must the resulting harm match the exact prior manifestation of the propensity?+
Yes. Liability under the rule is limited to harm that results from the abnormally dangerous propensity of which the possessor knows or has reason to know, so the injury must flow from the same characteristic previously observed.
Supporting sources
Does strict liability for abnormally dangerous propensities apply to trespassers?+
No. A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability when a trespasser is injured by a dangerous domestic animal kept on the premises, even if the animal has known abnormally dangerous propensities.
Supporting sources
TortsNegligence · Limitations on liability and special rules of liabilityUBEIntermediate