Question regarding strict liablity for dangerous animals

[Steerpike]

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).

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

 

[AllieBaba]

Brent Adams & Asses says they're liable...

http://www.brentadams.com/news.cfm

 

[Steerpike]

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.

 

[jillian]

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).

No. They probably won't...

An interesting analysis of the subject.

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

 

[watermark]

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).

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.