Strict liability

Question 1

Wild animals

Answer 1

Strict liability applies to:

(1) Injuries caused directly by the UNrestrained wild animal if related to the animal’s dangerous propensities, even if the owner had taken reasonable care to restrain the animal;
(2) Injuries caused by a plaintiff’s fearful reaction to an unrestrained wild animal.

Question 2

Domestic animals

Answer 2

The owner is strictly liable if the owner knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities.

In “dog-bite statute” jurisdictions, dog owners are held strictly liable for injuries caused by dogs.

Question 3

Trespassing animals

Answer 3

The owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage caused by her animal while the animal is trespassing on another’s land.

Exceptions:

(1) Household pets, unless the owner knows or has reason to know that the pet is intruding on another’s property in a harmful way;
(2) Animals on public roads, in which case a negligence standard applies.

Strict liability does not extend to the owner of the land on which the animals are kept, even when the animals are on the land with the landowner’s permission, unless the landowner also has the right to possess the animals.

Question 4

Assumption of risk

Answer 4

It can serve as a defense to a strict liability action.

Question 5

Damages

Answer 5

The plaintiff can recover for personal injury or property damage.

Generally, purely economic loss is not claimable under a strict liability theory.

Question 6

Contributory negligence

Answer 6

In a contributory-negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s negligence generally is not a defense to a strict-products-liability action when:

• the plaintiff negligently failed to discover the defect or
• misused the product in a reasonably foreseeable way.

Ordinary contributory negligence will not bar recovery based on strict products liability.