Also known as: abnormally dangerous domestic animal · strict liability domestic animals
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A domestic animal that the possessor knows or has reason to know possesses dangerous propensities abnormal to its class. The possessor is subject to strict liability for harm resulting from those propensities even when utmost care has been exercised to prevent the harm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Arthur Ackerman knew his neighbor kept an aggressive pit bull with a history of lunging at visitors. Arthur entered the yard anyway to retrieve a ball and was bitten. His knowing and unreasonable exposure to the known risk defeats the strict liability claim against the neighbor.
Audrey Ashton allowed her sister to keep a bull with known charging tendencies in a barn on Audrey's property. When the bull injured a farmhand, Audrey was held to the same strict liability standard as if she had been the possessor.
Alan Ackerman ignored posted no-trespassing signs and climbed a fence to enter a pasture where Ava Adebayo kept a bull known to charge strangers. The bull gored Alan. Because Alan was an intentional trespasser, Ava faces no strict liability for the injury.
Amelia Amari kept an aggressive dog loose in a salvage yard after learning vandals had cut the fence. A trespasser who entered through the gap was bitten. The court analyzed Amelia's negligence liability under the same rules that govern other artificial conditions on the land.
Atlas Ventures permitted a delivery driver to enter its fenced lot to unload supplies. The company kept a bull with known aggressive tendencies in the lot. When the bull injured the driver, the company was subject to strict liability because the driver entered under a privilege derived from consent.
The possessor must know or have reason to know that the domestic animal has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class. Liability then attaches for harm resulting from those propensities even if the possessor exercised utmost care.
Contributory negligence is not a defense except when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of harm from the animal. In that specific situation the defense bars recovery.
Yes. A harborer who is not in possession is subject to the same strict liability as a possessor for harm caused by the animal.
No. A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses for harm done by an abnormally dangerous domestic animal kept on the land.
The rules governing a possessor's negligence liability to a trespasser for harm from the animal are the same as the rules that apply to other artificial conditions or activities on the land.
Yes. The possessor is subject to strict liability to persons coming upon the land in the exercise of a privilege, whether the privilege derives from consent or otherwise.