Home animal welfare Liability for dangerous animals in tort law

Liability for dangerous animals in tort law

April 25, 2025

380

Liability for dangerous animals in tort law — Image Source - https://shorturl.at/NYATf

This article is written by Caroline Elizabeth pursuing Training Program in Cracking the Patent Examiner Exam from LawSikho.

This article has been published by Anshi Mudgal.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Liability in tort law refers to the legal responsibility of an individual or entity for their actions or omissions that cause harm to another party. In tort law, one is liable for a dangerous animal if the animal is kept or controlled by that person and harms another. It is based on the principle that the owner or keeper of an animal must prevent foreseeable harm.

Rules of liability for dangerous animals are designed to protect the victims and promote responsible ownership as well as the security of the people. Responsibility under laws varies depending on jurisdictions, with strict liability, statutory rules, as well as case laws governing liability cases. But when is an owner held accountable, and what legal defences are available? The following discussion overview of the principle, landmark case law and policy considerations relevant to the liability of dangerous animals.

Legal framework and principles

Common law principles

Strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), the doctrine applies to cases where a person brings and keeps anything likely to cause harm if it escapes. This principle has been applied by courts in some jurisdictions to the keeping of dangerous animals, and it imposes strict liability on the owner for damages inflicted.

Scienter rule (knowledge of dangerous propensities)

In the scienter rule, liability depends on the owner’s awareness of the animal’s dangerousness. An owner who is aware (or should be aware) that his animal has vicious tendencies will be liable for injuries caused. Past incidents and aggressive behaviour can also be considered by courts as evidence of such knowledge.

Statutory provisions in different jurisdictions

United States – restatement (second) of torts

The Restatement (Second) of Torts provides liability for animal owners and distinguishes between wild animals and domestic animals. In terms of wild animals, owners are subject to strict liability, while the liability pertaining to domestic animals is conditional on prior awareness of any dangerous tendencies.

United Kingdom – Animals Act 1971

Under the Animals Act 1971, animals are deemed to be dangerous (not commonly domesticated) and non-dangerous (commonly domesticated). Strict liability applies regarding any damage caused by the keepers of dangerous animals. Liability for non-dangerous animals is a matter of whether the keeper knew or should have known of the animal’s aggressive tendencies. A keeper can be held responsible if an animal has a history of dangerous behaviour and the keeper knew about it. This may help define more strict liability for inherently dangerous species and less strict liability for domesticated animals in light of their behaviour.

India – liability under the Indian Penal Code and Civil Law

India has liability rules based on the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) and civil law doctrines. Negligence and wrongful restraint sections may be used in cases where an animal injures someone because the owner was negligent in controlling it. Civil claims can also be brought under the tort law principles.

Classification of animals and liability

The nature of the animal and the level of risk it poses to humans and their property are the classification criteria of animals. This is important for the classification in cases of animal-related injury or damage.

Dangerous vs. non-dangerous animals

Wild animals (Ferae Naturae)

Ferae naturae are also known as wild animals, which means they are not normally domesticated and still have their instincts. Lions, tigers, snakes and bears are all examples. Such animals are inherently dangerous and unpredictable, thus, ownership of such animals imposes strict liability on the owner. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (India) and the Animal Welfare Act, 1966 (USA) are guidelines adopted to deal with such animals regarding their treatment and the responsibilities of owners of such animals.

Domesticated animals (Mansuetae Naturae)

Mansuetae naturae are domesticated animals, or those that have been tamed and adapted to live with humans, for example, dogs, cats, cattle and horses. Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, liability for injuries caused by domesticated animals in general depends on whether the owner was negligent or was aware of the animal’s aggressive tendencies. In cases of aggressive dogs, it is highlighted by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (UK) that owners of these dogs are legally accountable and must ensure their dogs are muzzled, leashed, and under control in public spaces. If the dog causes harm because of the owner’s negligence, failure to comply can lead to criminal charges, fines or imprisonment.

Owner’s duty of care and control

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) sets international standards for animal owners to take care, supervision and restraint in a reasonable way to avoid any harm. Consequences for failing to fulfil these responsibilities are provided under OIE guidelines under national laws. Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (India) as well as the Animal Welfare Act, 1966 (USA), animal owners are also obliged to take care of the animals.

Special rules for exotic pets

Exotic pets can include small venomous snakes, large reptiles and primates, and each species presents different and unique legal issues. Many jurisdictions have strict regulations regarding the ownership of exotic pets, demanding special permits as well as special safety measures. Owners are usually liable on strict terms for such animals because of the inherent risks involved. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) governs the trade of Exotic and endangered species.

Theories of liability

In regard to liability of animal owners, there are different legal principles depending on the type of animal and on the circumstances of the accident.

Strict liability for wild animals

For owners of wild animals, there is strict liability towards anyone who is harmed by those animals, no matter what effort has been made to prevent such harm. As per the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (UK), courts tend to presume that wild animals are inherently dangerous and the owner proves full responsibility for the damages that may occur. This principle is enforced in the Animal Welfare Act, 1966 (USA), and CITES reinforce this principle by placing the liability on wild animal owners.

Negligence-based liability for domesticated animals

In general, the liability concerning domestic animals is based on negligence. The owner may be liable for injuries arising from which he has not exercised reasonable care, for instance, where the owner does not secure a known aggressive dog. If, on the other hand, the owner did not previously know about the animal’s aggressive nature, he may not be liable. The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (UK) addresses the liability of domestic animal attacks in legal terms.

Vicarious liability of employers for animal-related incidents

When the injury occurs in the scope of the employment, employers may be vicariously liable for the injuries sustained from animals under their control. For instance, a circus or zoo operator could be held responsible if the negligence of an employee results in an animal attack. International guidelines on employer responsibility in cases like this are laid down by regulations under the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).

Defences against liability

Many legal defences exist that can reduce or eliminate the general liability in animal-related cases.

Provocation by the victim

In such a case, if the victim provokes the animal by teasing or injuring it, the owner is not liable for any injuries the animal causes. It is often used in consideration of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (UK) regulations.

Contributory negligence

If the victim’s negligence is a contributing factor to the incident, such as going where there are warning signs, the liability of the owner may be reduced or eliminated. Contributory negligence is recognised as a possible defence in the Animal Welfare Act 1966 (USA).

Assumption of risk

If people participate in activities in which certain risks are known (e.g. working with animals in zoos or farms), they can be said to have accepted the risk for which the owner is not deemed to be liable. This is a common type of defence used under international animal welfare regulations.

Acts of third parties or natural events

However, if the animal attack is due to the actions of a third party, such as a burglar inciting the guard dog to attack, or a natural event like a thunderstorm creating a loose animal, then the owner may be legally responsible. This principle is embodied in more than one international as well as domestic legal framework, such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, India.

Case laws and judicial interpretations

Notable cases in the United States

In the United States, there have been judicial precedents to determine liability for injuries inflicted by animals. One of the landmark cases is Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), where the court established the rule of strict liability for a person who, in bringing a dangerous thing upon his land, is responsible in case it escapes with damage to the person’s neighbour. The principle is still applicable if there was no negligence, and it has been factored into modern liability laws. So in Marshall v. Ranne (1974), the court found the defendant strictly liable when his aggressive boar assaulted the plaintiff. It reinforced that owners of dangerous animals are responsible for injuries to humans that are caused by the vicious tendencies that the animals are known to possess.

Also in Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Center (1997), the court stated that someone who willingly comes into contact with wild animals exposes himself to certain risks and may reduce the owner’s liability. In cases involving exotic pet ownership, this principle was applied to liability determinations in cases that considered the role of assumption of risk.

Landmark judgments in the UK and India

The Animals Act 1971 lays a strong emphasis on total liability for certain animal-related injuries. In Mirvahedy v. Henley (2003), the ruling by the UK House of Lords concluded that even if the behaviour of the animal was unexpected, an owner could be deemed liable for damages.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 have been used to address liability in Courts in India. In State of Maharashtra v. Salman Khan (2002), Salman Khan was charged with illegally shooting a blackbuck, a protected species. It highlighted legal accountability for attacking wildlife and the penalty for so-called poaching.

Comparative analysis of case outcomes

The comparative study of these cases shows that the U.S. primarily follows the principles of negligence and strict liability under the common law, while the UK has codified certain provisions under the Animals Act 1971. Indian jurisprudence, however, provides for wider application of liability in tort law and criminal statutes. Unlike in the UK and India, the U.S. legal system is state-dependent and, as a result, varies in liability.

Policy considerations and implications

Balancing public safety and animal rights

Governments from all around the world try to address the issues of public safety and animal welfare laws. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) determines the dangerous animal policies.

Regulation of the ownership of dangerous animals

Laws such as the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (UK) and the Endangered Species Act 1973 (US) are used to ensure public safety and conservation of wildlife. These laws are very strict licensing and prohibition on possessing potentially dangerous animals on the basis that untrained individuals should not own them. Similarly, India’s Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, makes it illegal to domesticate some wild species for biodiversity preservation and to prevent illegal wildlife trade. These regulations serve to limit human wildlife interactions as well as decrease perils to general public safety and avoid abuse to endangered species.

Liability insurance and risk mitigation

As a result of the cases of growing number of animal attacks, exotic pet owners are required to have liability insurance in their jurisdiction. The law was strengthened in the U.S Animal Welfare Act 1966, which prohibited the private ownership of dangerous species.

Conclusion

The problem of liability for dangerous animals is, finally, a major legal problem, although the interests of public safety must be weighed against the interests of the animals. In this article, some of the most notable legal frameworks, notable cases, and policy challenges that have shaped and challenged Texas environmental law were examined. As more exotic pets are being owned and cases of exotic pet-related incidents are occurring, future legislation should increase liability enforcement and stricter licensing regulations. Today, as a century ago, tort law plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability, providing justice to the victims, and responsible animal ownership. A well-regulated approach in the evolving legal systems would help get rid of the risk, and at the same time, humans and animals would also benefit.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between strict liability and negligence in animal cases?

In strict liability, the owner is held liable without regard to fault, and in negligence, the owner is liable if he failed to exercise reasonable care.

Are exotic pet owners held to a higher standard of liability?

Indeed, exotic pet owners are subject to stricter duties under laws like the Animal Welfare Act (U.S.).

Can landlords be held liable for tenants’ dangerous animals?

In some cases, landlords can be responsible if they knew of the dangerous animal and did not act.

References

Serato DJ Crack 2025 Serato DJ PRO Crack