Also known as: domestic animals · domesticated animal
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An animal that is by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept.
David Dawson keeps a pit bull on his property that has previously lunged at visitors. The dog bites a neighbor who approaches the yard despite a fence. David exercised the utmost care in containing the animal yet remains liable because he knew of the abnormal propensity.
Demetrius Douglas enters a yard marked with no-trespassing signs to retrieve a ball and is bitten by a dog known to be aggressive. Because Demetrius knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk, his contributory negligence bars recovery under strict liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Diana Delgado allows her neighbor to keep an aggressive bull on her land even though she does not possess the animal. When the bull injures a passerby, Diana faces the same strict liability as if she were the possessor.
Dylan Duffy keeps a border collie that herds livestock on his farm. The dog qualifies as domestic because it is by custom devoted to the service of mankind in that location and time.
Dolores Diaz climbs a locked gate marked with private property signs and is injured by a bull kept on the land. The possessor is not subject to strict liability for harm to this intentional trespasser even though the bull is abnormally dangerous.
Daniel Diaz leaves a known gap in a fence and releases an aggressive dog each night. A trespasser who enters through the gap is mauled. The possessor's negligence duty is measured by the same rules that govern other artificial conditions on the land.
A possessor is strictly liable when the animal has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class and the possessor knows or has reason to know of those propensities. Liability attaches even if the possessor exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.
Supporting sources
Contributory negligence is a defense only when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of harm from the animal. Ordinary contributory negligence does not defeat strict liability.
Supporting sources
No. A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses for harm done by an abnormally dangerous domestic animal kept on the land.
Supporting sources
The possessor's negligence in failing to prevent harm is judged under the same rules that apply to other artificial conditions or activities on the land.
Supporting sources
One who, although not in possession, harbors an abnormally dangerous domestic animal is subject to the same liability as if in possession of it.
Supporting sources
…of a town board of health who had killed a horse in obedience to an order of the commissioners on contagious diseases among domestic animals, acting under the alleged authority of the state legislature. The order recited that the animal had been examined and was adjudged to have the glanders. The judge before whom the case was…