Werner owns a number of animals that live in and around his home.Because Werner's house is located in a secluded area,he has little interaction with people outside of his immediate family.He consequently has never received any complaints about his animals until recently.That complaint has come in the form of a tort action by Madonna,who claims that she was wrongfully hurt by one of Werner's animals.The evidence establishes that she was bitten by the animal as she knocked on Werner's door with the intention of asking him to donate to a charity.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Madonna may have a good arguable claim against Werner in the law of tort for compensatory damages for the injuries that she suffered because the evidence establishes that she was bitten by Werner's animal. Under the strict liability rule, an owner is liable for any harm caused by their animal regardless of their fault or knowledge of the animal's dangerous tendencies. The traditional common law rules regarding liability for animals were based on the owner's knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities, and liability would only attach if the owner knew or should have known of the danger posed by their animal. However, this is not the case for strict liability. There are defenses available for strict liability, such as assumption of risk or contributory negligence, but there are no defenses available for inherently dangerous activities such as keeping a wild animal as a pet. Strict liability is not a type of vicarious liability, as vicarious liability refers to the liability of an employer for the actions of their employees, whereas strict liability is the liability of the owner for the actions of their animal.

Werner Owns a Number of Animals That Live in and Around