Last October, a fascinating news story involving escaped animals created an uproar in the media. In Zanesville, Ohio, a man named Terry Thompson opened the cages of over 50 exotic wild animals that he owned and kept on his private reserve. The escaped animals then proceeded to march around town, creating a literal urban safari a la Jumanji, causing much fear and alarm for the town’s residents.
Some of the wild animals included leopards, black bears, 300-pound Bengal tigers, grizzly bears, and lions. Yikes! Fortunately, no one was injured, although sadly all of the beasts had to be put down by local law enforcement. To make things more bizarre, Thompson ended up taking his own life by gunfire shortly after releasing the animals. Apparently, he had more than his lion’s share of personal problems.
This incident raises some questions in my mind about the laws governing the ownership of wild, dangerous animals. Just what are the rules for keeping wild animals? What type of precautions must keepers of wild animals take? And when does a person become liable for an escaped animal?
According to most state laws, the care of wild animals like lions, tigers, and bears falls under a category known as “strict liability”. Strict liability is somewhat unique, and stands like a lone wolf in the realm of civil tort law. Basically, strict liability rules impose civil liability on a person, even if they didn’t intend to commit a violation of law.
For instance, an owner of wild animals can be held liable for property damage or injuries simply if their wild animals escape from their cages, even if they took the necessary precautions to keep the animals locked in. So, in the Zanesville, Ohio case, Mr. Thompson could have been held liable even if he hadn’t opened the cages, and even if the animals escaped without his assistance. Strict liability principles dictate that wild animals are just too dangerous, and their keepers will be held to a much higher standard of care than normal.
Strict liability principles can also involve other matters besides wild animals, such as the transport of super-hazardous materials (e.g., oil spill claims), and certain defective products. But are they fair? I mean, is it ok to hold someone liable even if they didn’t intend to inflict harm? Many think that strict liability laws are effective, because they force people to think twice before engaging in risky activity or before obtaining highly dangerous items. They can sometimes result in very beastly legal consequences if someone gets hurt.
But I think that strict liability laws are somewhat toothless, for a few different reasons. To begin with, most people probably don’t even know about strict liability rules. Your average Joe or Jane usually won’t be thinking about strict liability on an everyday basis. And secondly, strict liability laws only provide a remedial mechanism after something dangerous has already happened, like an oil spill or a products liability injury.
I agree very strongly with the residents of Zanesville, who complained that legislation simply isn’t, well, strict enough for owners of escaped exotic animals. A more thorough screening process needs to be implemented for persons who want to import wild animals for private keeping. For instance, Mr. Thompson may very well have had a mental health issue- such an important factor should have been considered before he was allowed to even get the animals.
While it may seem that strict liability rules are abstract and inapplicable, the reality is, some people might be subject to these laws without being aware of it. For example, I know many people who are fond of keeping pets like venomous snakes and spiders. These types of pets may expose the owner to strict liability if the animal escapes. Even certain types of fishes and some dogs can be included under strict liability rules, so it’s good to know the implications of owning such pets.
With all that said, I wish you a safe, liability-free holiday season and an awesome 2012. Feel free to go ape at your white elephant parties, but do think twice before going out and buying a zoo for the holidays to rescue animals. It might seem like a novel showcase of good will, but it could get you into trouble, even if you didn’t mean to.
What our clients think
At LegalMatch, we value our client’s opinion and make it a point to address their concerns. You can refer to our reviews page if you want to know what our clients have to say about us.