Also known as: dangerous propensity · vicious propensity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A characteristic or known tendency of an animal or product to cause particular types of harm. The tendency triggers strict liability for a possessor or supplier when the harm flows from that tendency, even if the utmost care was exercised to prevent injury.
Crestline Bank rented a tiger from a collector and placed it in a reinforced glass cage in the lobby for a client event. The tiger lunged, shattered the glass, and injured Avery. Avery recovers from Crestline under strict liability because the injury resulted from the tiger's characteristic tendency to attack.
Pine Ridge Wildlife Rescue kept a rescued jaguar in an enclosure near a public trail. Flooding weakened the fence and the jaguar escaped, then mauled Evan while he jogged. Evan recovers from the nonprofit because the mauling resulted from a dangerous propensity characteristic of jaguars.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Prairie Pets sold hand-raised fennec foxes in a suburban mall and allowed Lena to handle one. The fox bit Lena severely. Lena recovers on a strict liability theory because the bite resulted from the fox's abnormally dangerous propensity of which the store had reason to know.
Diana Dawson purchased an SUV whose tires had a known tendency to separate under highway speeds. The tread separated, causing her to lose control and crash. Dawson recovers because the injury resulted from the tires' dangerous propensity of which the manufacturer had reason to know.
Devon Drake took a prescription drug whose manufacturer knew of its tendency to cause severe adverse reactions in some patients. Drake suffered the reaction and sued. Drake recovers because the harm resulted from the drug's dangerous propensity of which the manufacturer had reason to know.
Dylan Duffy worked with insulation products whose manufacturer knew of their tendency to release harmful fibers. Duffy developed an asbestos-related disease and sued. Duffy recovers because the disease resulted from the products' dangerous propensity of which the manufacturer had reason to know.
No. The possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm that results from a dangerous propensity characteristic of the species, regardless of whether the possessor had actual knowledge.
Supporting sources
A possessor of a domestic animal faces strict liability only when the possessor knows or has reason to know the animal has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class. Wild-animal liability attaches to any characteristic dangerous propensity of the species without a separate knowledge requirement.
Supporting sources
No. Strict liability applies even when the possessor has exercised the utmost care to prevent the animal from causing harm.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must show that the possessor knew or had reason to know the animal possessed dangerous propensities abnormal to its class and that the harm resulted from that propensity.
Supporting sources
…when a plaintiff sues under strict liability, there is no need to prove that the manufacturer knew or should have known of any dangerous propensities of its product—such knowledge is imputed to the manufacturer. [ Freund v. Cellofilm Properties, Inc. , 87 N.J. at 239] Thus, we held in Freund that it was reversible error for the trial…