Also known as: wild animal · ferae naturae
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An animal that is not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept. A possessor of such an animal faces strict liability for harm the animal causes to persons, land, or chattels when the harm results from a dangerous propensity characteristic of the species or known to the possessor.
Federal Foundation kept a caged tiger at a remote construction site as a marketing display. The tiger escaped its reinforced enclosure during feeding and mauled Harry, an inspector walking the perimeter. Federal Foundation had followed every safety regulation and built the strongest enclosure possible. Harry sues for his injuries.
Richard completed safety training at Crown Outreach wildlife sanctuary. He unlocked a secondary gate during a tour to photograph a large carnivore from a closer position than rules allowed. The animal lunged and caused serious injuries. Richard sues the sanctuary.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Lucas kept bison in a roadside enclosure on his farm. Russell leaned over the fence despite warning signs to photograph a calf. A bison gored him. Russell sues Lucas for the injury.
Wallace Webb allowed his neighbor to keep a lion on Wallace's property even though Wallace never took physical possession. The lion escaped and injured a passerby. The passerby sues Wallace.
Coastal Charity housed injured coyotes in a large enclosure on its sanctuary grounds. Ivan, who had seen warning signs, entered through a gap to smoke. A coyote escaped through a loose panel and bit him. Ivan sues the sanctuary.
Crown Wellness kept a research primate on its hospital grounds inside a locked enclosure. Daniel entered a restricted service courtyard marked employees only to smoke. The primate escaped through a gap and attacked him. Daniel sues the hospital on a strict liability theory.
No. The possessor remains liable for harm caused by the animal even when the possessor has taken every possible precaution to prevent escape or injury.
Recovery is barred when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk that the animal will cause harm. General contributory negligence does not otherwise defeat the claim.
Yes. One who harbors a wild animal without taking possession faces the identical strict liability that would apply to a possessor.
No. A possessor of land owes no strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses for injuries inflicted by a wild animal kept on the land.
Liability reaches only harm that results from a dangerous propensity characteristic of wild animals of that class or known to the possessor.
…by, and in the view of, the person who originally found, started, chased it, and was on the point of seizing it. Occupancy in wild animals can be acquired only by possession, but such possession does not signify manucaption, though it must be of such a kind as by nets, snares or other means, as to so circumvent the creature…