Sandra Black – OR Unit 8A Assignment February 28, 2010

Jane is a 65-year old woman who lives alone with her pet chimpanzee Muffy. Jane's
neighbor Charlie is washing his sports car in his driveway and Charlie leaves the car door
open to go get some more cleaning supplies. Meanwhile Muffy escapes from Jane's house
and destroys the upholstery in Charlie's car. Charlie has to replace the chairs and carpet in
his car at a cost of $8,000. Charlie brings an action against Jane. Analyze the likelihood of
success of Charlie’s lawsuit. Consider any possible defenses. There are no applicable local
ordinances against owning a chimpanzee.

To: Whitney Davis, Supervising Attorney

From: Sandra Black, Paralegal

Re: Charlie v. Jane

Damage to property

STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT

I have been assigned the task of determining within the meaning of strict liability if the

Defendant, Jane, should be held liable for the damages to the Plaintiff’s, Charlie, sports car.

ISSUE

Under the Local Municipal Ordinances, is there sufficient evidence to support Strict

Liability of a wild animal escaping from the owner’s home and causing damage to the Plaintiff’s

sports car? The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff has Comparative negligence.

BRIEF ANSWER

Qualification is highly likely. In the case of Briley v. Mitchell, the court ruled that “the

general law pronounces that the owner of animals ferae naturae or of beasts of a dangerous or

vicious classes are liable under all circumstances for injuries done by them. The predicate of this

rule of liability is the wrongful and unjustifiable conduct of the owner in keeping an animal of

1
that species. Knowledge by the owner or custodian of its vicious nature need not be proved, as he

is conclusively presumed to have had such knowledge. Security of the dangerous animal must be

assured under all circumstances, for the gravamen of the tort liability is the keeping of the

animal, and negligence, strictly speaking, is not an element of the owner's liability.”

FACTS

Jane is the owner of the chimpanzee, which escaped from her home and trespassed on

Charlie’s land and property. The plaintiff left his car door open and the chimp climbed inside of

the vehicle and caused $8,000 in damages to the interior of the car. The municipality does not

have any applicable local ordinances against owning a chimpanzee within its limits.

ANALYSIS

The owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for physical harm done to another person if

that harm results from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of wild animals. Strict

liability has been imposed on the owners of lions, tigers, bears, elephants, wolves, and monkeys.

A wild animal, however domesticated, can never be regarded as safe and liability does not rest

upon any experience with the particular animal.

The defendant assumes all risk and liability regardless of whether the owner of a wild

animal has knowledge and/or a lack of knowledge of its dangerous propensity. A case in point,

Briley v. Mitchell, the Doctrine of Strict Liability applies because the risk is so significant that

no amount of care will eliminate that risk (ex: wild animals, explosives, highly flammable

liquids). Courts have followed the Rule of Strict Liability for owners or keepers of wild animals

2
that cause harm even though the possessor has exercised the utmost care as per the Restatement

of Torts § 507.

CONCLUSION

The owner is strictly liable for the harm the chimpanzee caused under the common law

rule that possessors of wild animals are strictly liable for the harm they cause unless the victim

has knowingly and voluntarily brought the injury or damages on himself. Because the escape

was foreseeable and because it is not likely that the owner can show that the chimpanzee had

been caged and was the direct cause of damages to the car, she probably does not have a valid

defense to a strict liability action regardless of the lack of local municipal ordinances regarding

wild animals.

RECOMMENDATION

This case should proceed because there is proximate cause for action under the Doctrine

of Strict Liability. The defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff had comparative negligence

because he left his car door open will most likely be rejected by the court as a defense.

Instructor Comments
Grade 18/20

Hi Sandra, nice job overall. You did a good job of presenting your arguments and explaining
your reasoning but could have tried to apply some defenses from the defendant's point of view
just as you will have to do in practice, even if they are a reach. Consider assumption of risk and
contributory negligence as examples. Here are a few other points to consider. The laws of each
jurisdiction could identify which animals are domesticated and which are wild, which could go
to the issue of whether the animal’s owner should be held to be strictly liable. The law often
finds the owner responsible in this case due to the untamed nature of an animal versus household
pets.