Question regarding strict liablity for dangerous animals

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Steerpike, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Normally, if you have an inherently dangerous animal, there is strict liability for harm caused by that animal.

    Does anyone know if that applies to places like zoos?

    If it does, the family of the tiger attack victims can sue and won't have to prove the zoo was negligent (i.e. won't have to show the escape was foreseeable).
     
  2. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    The zoo will have to show they took reasonable precautions to protect the public.

    Personally, I think they were negligent in this case. I'm not sure that comes down to any one person being at fault, but obviously, the enclosure wasn't sufficient.
     
  3. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    If it's strict liability, the zoo will be on the hook no matter what they show. That's why I was wondering if the normal rule on strict liability applied to zoos. If it does, there is no need to show negligence to win a suit against them.
     
  4. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
  5. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Ok, they're saying there IS strict liability. That's the usual rule with inherently dangerous animals.

    So the people suing the zoo don't have to show the zoo was unreasonable, or that they should have known. The mere fact that someone got hurt is enough to make the zoo liable under strict liability.
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    No. They probably won't...

    An interesting analysis of the subject.

    http://www.zoocheck.com/article%20pdf's/Wild%20Animals%20and%20Strict%20Liability.pdf
     
  7. watermark
    Offline

    watermark Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Messages:
    160
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    It could probably be applied anywhere. The law isn't specific to zoos. I doubt many people even thought about it before you brought that up.
     

Share This Page