Also known as: propensities · propensity evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A known dangerous characteristic of a domestic animal abnormal to its class. The possessor who knows or has reason to know of the propensity faces strict liability for harm the animal causes even when the possessor exercised utmost care to prevent the harm.
A known dangerous characteristic of a domestic animal abnormal to its class. The possessor who knows or has reason to know of the propensity faces strict liability for harm the animal causes even when the possessor exercised utmost care to prevent the harm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
An inference that a person acted in conformity with a character trait on a particular occasion. Evidence offered solely to support this inference is generally inadmissible because it invites the jury to decide the case on the basis of general disposition rather than the specific facts at issue.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
An inference that a person acted in conformity with a character trait on a particular occasion. Evidence offered solely to support this inference is generally inadmissible because it invites the jury to decide the case on the basis of general disposition rather than the specific facts at issue.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Pilar Pena kept a large dog that had previously lunged at delivery workers on three occasions. After the fourth incident in which the dog bit a visiting neighbor, the neighbor sued. Because Pena knew of the dog's abnormal aggressive propensity, she is subject to strict liability for the bite even though she had installed a stronger fence and posted warning signs.
Prime Logistics kept a tiger on its warehouse grounds. The tiger escaped its enclosure and mauled a neighboring business owner. Because the injury resulted from the dangerous propensity characteristic of tigers, the company faces strict liability even though it had used the strongest available fencing.
Pedro Pacheco owned a bull that had repeatedly broken through fences to reach cows in heat. When the bull charged and injured a passing cyclist, the cyclist sued. Liability is confined to harm flowing from the known sexual propensity. The owner is not automatically liable for unrelated aggressive acts the bull might commit.
A possessor faces strict liability when the possessor knows or has reason to know the domestic animal has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class. The liability extends to harm caused by that propensity even if the possessor took every possible precaution.
Supporting sources
Recovery is limited to harm that results from the specific abnormally dangerous propensity of which the possessor knew or had reason to know. Harm caused by a different propensity does not trigger liability under the rule.
Supporting sources
Paul Peterson faced charges for selling narcotics. The government offered evidence that two years earlier Peterson had sold drugs from the same location. The court admitted the evidence after finding sufficient proof the prior sales occurred and determining that the probative value on intent and absence of mistake outweighed any unfair propensity prejudice.
Precision Tools shareholders sued after a merger vote, alleging the proxy statement omitted a key conflict of interest. The court held the omission material because there was a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would have viewed the information as significantly affecting the voting process.
Priscilla Parks received a life sentence without parole after her seventh felony conviction. The court considered her demonstrated propensity for repeated serious criminal conduct when deciding whether the sentence was proportionate under the Eighth Amendment.
The evidence is admissible if there is sufficient proof from which a jury could find the prior act occurred and if the probative value on a proper purpose such as intent or absence of mistake is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
The inference invites the jury to convict on the basis of the defendant's general character rather than the evidence of the charged offense. The rule protects against the risk that the jury will overweigh character evidence and deny the defendant a fair opportunity to defend against the specific charge.
Supporting sources
…President. In The Federalist No. 73 (H. Lodge ed. 1888), Hamilton focused on the President's role in making laws: "If even no propensity had ever discovered itself in the legislative body to invade the rights of the Executive, the rules of just reasoning and theoretic propriety would of themselves teach us that the one ought…