Top Law Schools

Is the owner strictly liable for any harm done by the animal or does it have to be a harm due to the animal's inherent dangerousness?

Barbri's simulated MBE had a problem on an aged and toothless bear - owner was strictly liable when the bear ambled towards a little girl and made her afraid and run and fall, injuring herself.

Did a Kaplan problem where someone had a shark tank in their backyard and invited people to look at his great white pet - someone was injured when the shark fin splashed water on him and he contracted pneumonia - no strict liability because it didn't result from the shark's dangerous qualities.

Animal's inherent dangerousness.

This is really stupid and I don't agree with it(not that anyone cares what I think), but essentially, someone fleeing from what they perceive to be a dangerous wild animal is part of the inherent dangerousness of the animal.

At the Drive-In wrote:Animal's inherent dangerousness.

This is really stupid and I don't agree with it(not that anyone cares what I think), but essentially, someone fleeing from what they perceive to be a dangerous wild animal is part of the inherent dangerousness of the animal.

hm yeah I guess that makes sense thank you