Briley v. Mitchell
238 La. 551, 1959 La. LEXIS 1112, 115 So. 2d 851 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The keeper of a wild animal (ferae naturae) is held to a standard of strict and absolute liability for any harm caused by the animal. The keeper's negligence or use of reasonable care to restrain the animal is irrelevant to the determination of liability.
Facts:
- Leon Mitchell acquired a sixteen-point antlered deer in Arkansas for exhibition at the Natchitoches Christmas Festival.
- After the festival, Mitchell kept the deer staked out on the premises of the Natchitoches Locker Plant, Inc., secured by a chain, collar, and a pipe driven into the ground.
- Knowing the deer was inherently dangerous, Mitchell requested that police occasionally drive by the premises as a precaution.
- On January 5, 1958, the deer escaped from the premises and was found roaming a residential area of the city.
- Louis R. Briley, a local police officer, responded to a complaint about the loose deer.
- While Briley and other officers were attempting to recapture the animal, it attacked Briley, goring him with its antlers and causing severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis R. Briley sued Leon Mitchell and the Natchitoches Locker Plant, Inc. in a Louisiana trial court for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- Briley, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the defendants had exercised reasonable care and were not negligent.
- Briley then applied for and was granted a writ of review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the keeper of a wild animal that escapes and injures someone strictly liable for the resulting damages, regardless of whether the keeper was negligent in securing the animal?
Opinions:
Majority - Simon, Justice.
Yes, the keeper of a wild animal is strictly liable for the injuries it causes, regardless of fault. The court distinguished the standard of liability for wild animals (ferae naturae) from that for domestic animals. While liability for harm caused by domestic animals requires a showing of fault or negligence, the keeper of a wild animal is held to a strict liability standard. Citing the precedent in Vredenburg v. Behan, the court held that the gravamen of the tort is the act of keeping the dangerous animal itself, not negligence in how it is kept. Therefore, the owner assumes the obligations of an insurer to the public and keeps the animal at their own peril, making any precautions taken to prevent escape legally irrelevant once an injury occurs.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and solidifies the doctrine of strict liability for keepers of wild animals in Louisiana, drawing a sharp distinction from the negligence standard applied to domestic animals. It establishes that the owner's duty is absolute and that defenses based on exercising due care are unavailable in such cases. The ruling provides a clear, bright-line rule that simplifies litigation involving injuries from wild animals by removing the element of negligence, thereby strengthening public protection from harms posed by captive non-domesticated creatures.
