Also known as: dangerous animals · wild animal · ferae naturae
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An animal that is either wild or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal. A possessor of such an animal is subject to strict liability for harm the animal causes to persons or property even when the possessor has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.
David Dawson kept a lion cub in a reinforced enclosure on his rural property and checked the locks daily. The cub escaped through a small undetected gap and attacked a passing cyclist. David is strictly liable for the cyclist's injuries even though he used every available precaution to contain the animal.
Dorothy Daniels kept a breeding bull known for prior charges inside multiple layers of fencing on her farm. Neighbor Dustin Donovan climbed the outer fence and waved a jacket to provoke the animal. Dustin's knowing and unreasonable confrontation with the known risk defeats his strict-liability claim against Dorothy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Damian Decker allowed his neighbor to keep a tiger in a cage on Damian's land while the neighbor traveled. The tiger escaped and injured a delivery driver. Damian is subject to the same strict liability as the actual possessor because he harbored the wild animal.
Delilah Duran kept bison in a roadside enclosure on her farm as a tourist attraction. A bison gored a visitor who leaned over the fence. The bison qualifies as a wild animal because it is not by custom devoted to the service of mankind, triggering strict liability.
Darius Dixon entered Crown Wellness grounds through a gate marked employees only and proceeded to a restricted courtyard. A research primate that had escaped its enclosure attacked him. The hospital faces no strict liability because Darius was an intentional trespasser.
Dominion Capital kept a guard dog on its fenced research facility. An urban explorer who ignored no-trespassing signs entered at night and was bitten after the dog escaped through an undetected fence gap. The company is liable only under ordinary negligence rules for failing to prevent harm to the trespasser, not under strict liability.
A plaintiff's knowing and unreasonable exposure to the precise risk created by the animal constitutes a defense. Ordinary contributory negligence or mere awareness of the animal's presence does not bar recovery.
Supporting sources
Anyone who keeps or harbors the animal is liable even without physical possession. A landowner who permits another to maintain the animal on the land therefore faces the same strict liability as the actual keeper.
Supporting sources
No. A possessor owes no strict liability to an intentional or negligent trespasser harmed by a dangerous animal kept on the land. The trespasser's status alone bars the claim regardless of the trespasser's knowledge of the animal.
Supporting sources
A wild animal is one not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and place it is kept. Domestic animals are those customarily devoted to human service. Only those with known abnormal dangerous propensities trigger strict liability.
Supporting sources
The same negligence rules that apply to other artificial conditions on the land control. The possessor must exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to trespassers from the animal.
Supporting sources
…without fault is to place "the printed, written or spoken word in the same class with the use of explosives or the keeping of dangerous animals." W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 108, p. 792 (3d ed. 1964). Clearly, this is inconsistent with the concepts of freedom of the press. Thus in this case I would reverse the judgment of the…