Also known as: mischievous propensity · vicious propensities · dangerous propensities
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A known dangerous tendency of a domestic animal that deviates from the normal behavior of animals in its class. The tendency triggers strict liability for resulting harm even when the possessor has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
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. When the dog later bit consultant Glenn in a darkened hallway, Elm Solar faced liability for the bite because it knew of the dog's abnormal propensity.
Lucas kept a border collie that had previously bruised a farmhand's leg during herding. When the dog bit Russell near the herd, Lucas incurred liability because he knew of the dog's abnormal propensity to nip beyond ordinary herding behavior.
Olivia operated a fall festival with a petting area containing goats. Staff observed the goats had repeatedly charged visitors after being agitated. When a goat with that known propensity knocked visitor Maria to the ground, the farm faced strict liability because it knew of the animals' abnormal tendency.
Central Transit employees observed a large unleashed dog repeatedly lunging at commuters near a food kiosk. After the dog with that known aggressive propensity bit Rivera in the boarding area, the station faced strict liability because it knew of the dog's abnormal behavior.
Yes. A single documented incident showing behavior outside the animal's normal class tendencies satisfies the knowledge requirement and triggers strict liability for subsequent harm caused by that propensity.
Supporting sources
No. Once the possessor knows or has reason to know of the abnormal propensity, liability attaches regardless of the care exercised to prevent the harm.
Supporting sources
Yes. Strict liability applies only when the injury flows from the abnormal propensity itself and not from some other characteristic of the animal.
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…