I was reading Frustrated Bar Examinee's latest post on the summary of the bar exam experience and it had me laughing out loud. But then it mentioned something about wild animals and that sent me into one of my lightning-fast mood changes, and I thought, "Oh my God. Wild Animals. WHAT IF IT'S ON THE ESSAY?" So I had to look it up. And for the convenience of those of you who may have panicked in this very same way, here it is:
Strict Liability for Wild Animals
An owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees for injuries caused by wild animals as long as that person didn't do anything to bring about the injuries.
No Strict Liability for Domestic Animals
Unless he has knowledge of that particular animal's dangerous propensities that are not common to the species.
Strict Liability Not Available to Trespassers
Strict liability will generally not be imposed imposed in favor trespassers in the absence of the owner's negligence. However, a landowner may be liable on intentional tort grounds fo rinjuries inflicted by vicious watchdogs.
Now, we can all just calm down.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I bet at least two of these will be on the PMBR PMBE on Monday. Getting sick to my stomach just thinking about it, but it will be a good practice run!
LOL when i saw that first i thought the end one said - may be liable for rhino's on his land...
And here's a tip from the stupid PMBR 3-day class which I got wrong: a rat is a wild animal. Another tip from the second rat problem from that test: when you sue the pet store for selling you a diseased rat, you're suing in products liability. At least I won't get that one wrong next week.
I see that calbarblondie stole my thunder before I typed this. Oh well. I'll post it anyway.
Post a Comment