How To Prove A California Strict Liability for Wild Animal Claim

In California, a claim of Strict Liability for Wild Animal is defined as:
Absolute responsibility for the injuries caused by a wild animal of a species known to be dangerous to people because of its nature. Liability does not rely at all on the presence of wrongful intent or negligence on the part of the animal keeper.
It simply means:
The keeper of a wild animal that causes injury cannot avoid paying for the harm the animal causes.
There are 3 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant owned, kept, or controlled a wild animal. The defendant had a wild animal in their possession, meaning they owned, cared for, or had control over it, which is a key factor in determining responsibility for any harm caused by that animal under strict liability laws.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant housed a large exotic snake in a custom-built enclosure in their backyard.
* The defendant regularly fed and cared for a pet monkey that was kept in their living room.
* The defendant purchased a tiger cub from a licensed dealer and maintained it on their property.
* The defendant displayed a collection of venomous reptiles in a glass terrarium within their home.
* The defendant was observed walking a large wolf on a leash in a public park. - Element 2. The plaintiff was harmed. In a strict liability case involving a wild animal, the plaintiff must show that they were injured or suffered damage due to the animal’s behavior, proving that the harm directly resulted from the animal’s wild nature, regardless of the owner’s precautions.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff sustained physical injuries after being bitten by the defendant’s wild animal while visiting the defendant’s property.
* The plaintiff incurred significant medical expenses due to treatment for injuries caused by the wild animal.
* The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety as a result of the encounter with the wild animal.
* The wild animal escaped from the defendant’s enclosure, directly leading to the plaintiff’s harm.
* The plaintiff was unable to work for several weeks due to the injuries inflicted by the wild animal. - Element 3. The defendant’s wild animal was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. In a strict liability case involving a wild animal, the plaintiff must show that the animal’s actions directly contributed to their injury, meaning the harm wouldn’t have happened without the animal’s involvement.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant’s wild animal escaped from its enclosure and entered the plaintiff’s property.
* The plaintiff was injured when the wild animal attacked while they were walking near the defendant’s property.
* Witnesses reported that the wild animal exhibited aggressive behavior prior to the incident.
* The defendant had previously received complaints about the wild animal’s dangerous tendencies.
* The plaintiff required medical treatment for injuries directly resulting from the wild animal’s attack.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 461.)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Claim of Strict Liability for Wild Animal, it’s essential to have a solid strategy. With a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5, you’ll be equipped to decide what to file at each phase of your case and prepare the necessary legal documents, supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Don’t navigate this complex process alone—empower yourself with the right tools and knowledge.
Prove Your CA Strict Liability for Wild Animal Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only