Also known as:domesticated animals · domestic animal · domestic animals
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. Liability for harm caused by such an animal turns on whether the possessor knows or has reason to know of dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Model Codes
Restatements
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Known Aggressive Dog Bites Consultant
Elm Solar permitted engineer Mariana to bring her large herding dog to the office after hours. The firm knew the dog had previously pinned and growled at another engineer. The dog later bit consultant Glenn in a darkened hallway. Elm Solar faces liability for the injuries.
Provoked Bull Gores Intruder
Austin climbed the outer fence of Molly's farm and waved a jacket at the breeding bull to provoke it. Austin knew the bull's history of charging incidents from prior visits. The bull broke through an inner gate and gored him. Austin's knowing confrontation defeats any strict liability claim.
Harboring Owner Faces Liability
Eva owns land leased to Northern Crop, which kept a bull with a history of charging humans. Max trespassed and was trampled by the bull. Eva faces the same liability as the actual possessor because she harbors the abnormally dangerous domestic animal.
Dog Qualifies as Domestic Animal
Daniel brought his elderly gentle spaniel to a crowded public hearing under his desk. The dog unexpectedly bit resident Carla who reached to pet it. Because the spaniel is by custom devoted to human service, ordinary negligence rules apply rather than strict liability for wild animals.
Trespasser Barred from Strict Liability
Max deliberately climbed a locked gate and ignored no-trespassing signs to enter a pasture at dusk. Northern Crop kept a bull with a documented history of charging unfamiliar humans there. The bull trampled Max. Strict liability does not apply to this intentional trespasser.
Negligence Standard Applies to Trespasser
Wesley slipped through a known gap in Ethan's fence after dark to steal parts. Ethan had released his aggressive pit bull loose among the wrecks each night. The dog cornered and bit Wesley. Ethan's negligence duty toward the trespasser is measured by the same rules that govern artificial conditions on the land.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
6
When is a possessor strictly liable for harm caused by a domesticated animal?+
A possessor is strictly liable only when the possessor knows or has reason to know the animal has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class. Liability attaches even if the possessor exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.
Supporting sources
Does a plaintiff's contributory negligence defeat strict liability for an abnormally dangerous domesticated animal?+
Yes. The plaintiff's knowing and unreasonable subjection to the risk that the animal will cause harm is a complete defense to strict liability.
Is a non-possessor who harbors an abnormally dangerous domesticated animal subject to the same liability?+
Yes. One who harbors such an animal, even without possession, faces the same strict liability as the actual possessor.
Supporting sources
How does the law define a domestic animal for tort liability purposes?+
A domestic animal is one that is by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place where it is kept. This definition distinguishes it from wild animals that receive different liability treatment.
Supporting sources
Does strict liability apply when an abnormally dangerous domesticated animal injures an intentional trespasser?+
No. A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses for harm done by the animal kept on the land.
Supporting sources
What negligence standard governs a landowner's duty to trespassers injured by an abnormally dangerous domesticated animal?+
The rules are the same as those that apply to other artificial conditions or activities on the land. Ordinary negligence analysis determines whether the possessor failed to exercise reasonable care.
Supporting sources
"in common," and that "[i]n the memory of men now living, a proposition to take private property [by eminent domain] for a public park . . . would have been regarded as a novel exercise of…
domestic animals
. And context, which includes statutory purposes, language, and history, tells us that the federal statute’s “licensing” language does not embrace Arizona’s overly broad definition of that…
and lead to property damages or personal injuries be considered one of the harms which makes the activity of blasting ultra-hazardous, this would still not include the case we have…
TortsNegligence · Limitations on liability and special rules of liabilityUBEFoundational