The general rule here is that the keeper of a wild animal is strictly liable for all harm causedby the wild characteristic of the animal.This also depends on the species of the animal.Physical aggression falls under this category if the species is generally known for its aggressivetendencies. Even so, people's reasonably foreseeable reactions to being confronted with a wildanimal are also caused by the wild characteristic, such as when they hurt themselves or others inforeseeable attempts to get away from the animal or protect themselves.Whether or not the animal is actually tame or aggressive is not the issue so much as what harm canreasonably be expected to result from a wild animal of the kind that caused plaintiff's harm.§22 (R3) > SL for wild animalso§22 (b) defines wild animal as an animal that belongs to a category of animals thathave not been generally domesticated and that are likely, unless restrained, to causepersonal injury”. oP must show that the animal is wild oMust show the ownership or possession in order to recover HYPOS:Keeping a pet wolverine > storm> breakdown the cage > injure the neighbor. And took allreasonable care. Strictly liable of wild animals. What about sheep > go on neighbor's land > livestock > livestock owner would be liable. For most domesticated animals > no strict liability > just negligence (except if you knewdangerousity of your animal)Distinction between breed to know if intrinsèquement dangerousAbnormally Dangerous ActivitiesOne situation where strict liability often arises is in the context of an abnormally dangerous activity.A. FactorsIf the following four factors are present, then an activity is likely abnormally dangerous:(1) The activity creates a high risk of significant harm, which cannot be eliminated even with theexercise of reasonable care by all actors, which risk is reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.(2) The activity is not a matter of common usage, or is not commonly carried on, in the localcommunity or area. Some courts will examine whether the character or nature of the activity isinappropriate, or out of place, in the local community, and (3) The plaintiff's injury flows almost solely from that aspect of the activity that makes it abnormallydangerous and must not depend on the actions of persons other than the defendant engaging in theactivity.Thus, if the defendant controls the overall safety level of the activity for multiple persons and couldmake it safe for everyone through reasonable care, the activity will not usually be considered anabnormally dangerous activity.Another way to say this is that the unavoidable and high dangerousness of the activity must inhereto the activity itself and not be dependent on the influence of outside forces.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 102 pages?
- Fall '06
- Tort Law