Also known as: wild animals · 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 caused by the animal to persons, land, or chattels even when the possessor has exercised the utmost care to confine the animal or prevent harm. Liability extends only to harm arising from a dangerous propensity characteristic of the class of wild animals or known to the possessor.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Wayne Walker keeps a tiger in a reinforced enclosure on his rural property and inspects the locks daily. The tiger escapes through a hidden flaw in the fencing and attacks Walter Washington, who is walking on the adjacent road. Walker faces strict liability for Washington's injuries even though he took every reasonable precaution to contain the animal.
Wesley Wong maintains a wolf on his estate and posts clear warnings about the animal. Whitney White, aware of the warnings, climbs the fence to photograph the wolf at close range and is bitten. Wong may assert contributory negligence as a complete defense because White knowingly and unreasonably exposed herself to the risk of harm.
Winston West keeps a bear as part of a private collection. The bear mauls a delivery driver who enters the property to leave a package. West is liable only because the attack resulted from the bear's characteristic predatory propensity rather than from some unrelated trait.
Warren Wu allows his neighbor's pet monkey to roam freely on his land for several weeks. The monkey damages Willowbrook Capital's nearby equipment. Wu is subject to the same strict liability as if he were the actual possessor of the wild animal.
Waverly Insurance inspects a policyholder's property and finds a fox kept in a backyard pen. Because foxes are not customarily devoted to human service in that locality, the animal qualifies as wild and triggers the strict-liability rules for its keeper.
Winslow Aviation keeps a lion in a secure backstage enclosure at an event venue. A fan who knowingly climbs a locked gate marked Employees Only is attacked by the escaped lion. The company owes no strict liability to the intentional trespasser even though the fan had no prior knowledge that any animal was present.
A wild animal is one that is not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and place it is kept. A domestic animal, by contrast, is one customarily devoted to human service in that setting. The classification determines whether strict liability applies to the possessor.
Supporting sources
No. The possessor is liable even when the utmost care has been exercised to confine the animal or prevent harm. Liability rests solely on possession of the wild animal and the occurrence of harm from its dangerous propensity.
…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…
…strenuously urge that there is such an exception. Their argument runs as follows: Ever since Roman times, animals ferae naturae
…Indeed, a State may criminalize an act that other States choose to reward — punishing, for example, the killing of endangered wild animals
…defendants' acts, liability without fault continued to be prescribed in a certain restricted area, for example, upon keepers of wild animals
…in Illinois include camping on the side of a public highway, ch. 605, § 5/9-124, interfering with the “lawful taking of wild animals
Supporting sources
Contributory negligence is a defense only when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk that the wild animal will cause harm. Ordinary contributory negligence that does not meet this standard does not bar recovery.
Supporting sources
Yes. One who harbors a wild animal without having possession is subject to the same strict liability as if he were in possession of it.
Supporting sources
No. A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses for harm done by a wild animal kept on the land, even if the trespasser has no reason to know the animal is present.
Supporting sources
Liability is limited to harm that results from a dangerous propensity characteristic of wild animals of the particular class or of which the possessor knows or has reason to know.
Supporting sources