Strict liability of Animals

The owner of a wild animal that is of a dangerous species, is liable for injuries sustained from their animal. There is no requirement for negligence or intent because it is a form of strict liability. Moreover, in order to impose liability upon an owner, the vicious nature of the animal needs to be abnormal to the class in which the animal belongs if the animal is domestic. The rationale for the strict liability is to impose liability upon an owner because they have knowledge that a vicious act is likely to result from their animal. However, there is a defense available for an owner when the plaintiff assumes the risk of the danger related to the vicious animal.

Strict liability may be imposed upon owners of domestic and wild animals as long as there is knowledge of the vicious characteristics the animal possesses. In addition, the vicious behavior needs to be the efficient, and proximate cause of the injury incurred to the plaintiff. In comparison, injuries to wild animals have an assumed responsibility whereas domestic animals may not. When an owner has a wild animal, there is a presumption of awareness that the animal has vicious behavior and tendencies. Moreover, proof of vicious behavior is more difficult when discussing domestic animals.

Liability may be imposed upon a third party employee when they possess knowledge as to the violent disposition of the animal. Here, when knowledge is passed on to an agent, there is a duty imposed to protect third persons. Owners of vicious animals have an additional duty to protect individuals they have a relationship with. Liability can be absolved if the owner warns employees of the dangers the animal carries. However, if an owner fails to warn another employee of the dangers, the owner will be held liable.

An employer duty is limited in regards to liability of vicious animals. Thus, the employer does not need to give specific descriptions regarding the possible dangers. When an employee is warned of an animal's behavior, and continues working, they may not hold the employee liable for damages. Additionally, liability cannot be argued that the animal is unusually vicious and that the employee did not appreciate the full extent of the danger, unless the employer knew of the danger, for if the employer was not aware of the danger.

We Will Get You The Money You Deserve!

Choose an Experienced Personal Injury Lawyer

If you, a family member or friend has suffered a personal injury because of the neglect of another, contact us immediately to discuss your case.  We will guide you throughout the legal process and get you the money you deserve -- using all the skills from our years of personal injury law practice.  Give us a call today for a Free Consultation. We are on your side. We will help you.