Also known as: domestic animal · domesticated animals
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An animal that is by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept. Liability for harm caused by such an animal turns on whether the possessor knows or has reason to know of dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.
Dolores Diaz kept a dog that had previously bitten a delivery person. The dog bit Demetrius Douglas while he walked past her yard. Dolores had exercised every possible precaution to restrain the dog. She is subject to liability because she knew of the dog's abnormal propensity.
Daphne Doyle visited Diane Dawson's property and ignored a clear warning not to approach the dog. The dog bit Daphne after she reached over the fence. Daphne knowingly and unreasonably subjected herself to the risk. Her contributory negligence bars recovery under strict liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Delilah Duran owned a rental property but did not occupy it. She allowed her tenant to keep a dog known for attacking strangers. The dog injured Denise Donovan on the premises. Delilah is subject to the same liability as if she were the possessor.
Diamond Manufacturing kept a horse on its property for pulling wagons and plowing fields. The horse kicked a neighboring worker during a routine task. The horse qualifies as a domestic animal because it is customarily devoted to human service in that location.
Demetrius Douglas climbed a locked gate and entered a posted pasture at night. A bull with a history of charging strangers trampled him. The farm owner kept the bull on the land. The owner is not subject to strict liability because Demetrius was an intentional trespasser.
Dawson Steel maintained a salvage yard with a known aggressive pit bull. The owner failed to repair a cut fence despite prior knowledge of trespassers. A thief entered through the gap and was mauled. The owner's negligence duty is judged under the same rules that apply to other artificial conditions on the land.
The classification determines whether strict liability applies only upon knowledge of abnormal dangerous propensities or applies regardless of care. An animal devoted by custom to human service at the relevant time and place is domestic. This classification controls whether the possessor faces liability without fault for harm caused by the animal.
Supporting sources
Contributory negligence bars recovery only when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk that an abnormally dangerous domestic animal will cause harm. Ordinary contributory negligence does not defeat strict liability. Assumption of the risk remains a separate defense.
Supporting sources
A person who harbors but does not possess such an animal is subject to the same strict liability as the actual possessor. Harboring occurs when the non-possessor provides a place for the animal or exercises some control over it. This rule prevents evasion of liability through formal title arrangements.
Supporting sources
Strict liability does not extend to an intentional or negligent trespasser harmed by an abnormally dangerous domestic animal kept on the land. Negligence claims against the possessor are judged under the same standards that govern liability for other artificial conditions or activities. The trespasser's status limits the possessor's exposure to automatic liability.
Supporting sources
…on the ground of absolute liability. If, however, the possibility that a violent vibration, concussion, or noise might frighten domestic animals and lead to property damages or personal injuries be considered one of the harms which makes the activity of blasting ultra-hazardous, this would still not include the case we have…