Siegfried Owns a Rattlesnake That He Keeps in His Office

Siegfried owns a rattlesnake that he keeps in his office in a large, locked aquarium.Bianca was severely injured during a recent meeting at Siegfried's office after she was bitten by the snake.She has sued for the tort of Rylands v Fletcher.Siegfried claims that he should not be held liable because he took every reasonable precaution in placing the snake in a locked aquarium.He also argues that it was entirely unforeseeable that the lock would spontaneously spring open and release the snake from its cage.(The manufacturer of the lock went out of business several years ago and cannot be sued.) The judge has accepted the factual truth of those arguments, but has not yet decided upon their legal significance.Can Siegfried avoid liability under Rylands v Fletcher on the basis that he neither carelessly nor intentionally injured Bianca? Is there any other basis upon which he might avoid liability? Explain your answers.