Byram v. Main
523 A.2d 1387 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a domestic animal, not known to be abnormally dangerous, is not strictly liable for harm caused when the animal escapes and wanders onto a public highway; liability in such cases must be based on a showing of negligence.
Facts:
- Peter Main's daughter owned a pet donkey named Meadow, which was kept in an enclosure on Main's property.
- In the early morning of July 22, 1981, Meadow escaped from its enclosure.
- The donkey wandered onto Interstate 95, a high-speed public highway, in Orono.
- A tractor-trailer rig operated by Ray Byram struck Meadow on the interstate.
- The collision caused significant damage to Byram's tractor-trailer rig.
Procedural Posture:
- Ray Byram first sued Peter Main for negligence in the Superior Court (Penobscot County), which is the court of first instance.
- The trial court directed a verdict for defendant Main.
- Byram (as appellant) appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, which reversed the directed verdict and remanded for a new trial.
- Before the second trial, Byram amended his complaint to add a strict liability count and dismissed the negligence count.
- After a jury-waived trial, the Superior Court found Main strictly liable and entered a judgment for Byram.
- Main (as appellant) then appealed that judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of strict liability apply to the owner of a domestic animal that escapes its enclosure, wanders onto a public highway, and causes a collision with a motor vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - McKusick, Chief Justice
No. The doctrine of strict liability does not apply to the owner of a domestic animal that escapes and causes a collision on a public highway; liability must be based on negligence. The trial court erred by relying on Decker v. Gammon to impose strict liability. The rule in Decker regarding an animal being "wrongfully in the place where they do any mischief" applies only to cases of animal trespass onto another's private land, not to an animal's presence on a public highway. The policy rationales for strict liability in trespass cases (protecting exclusive possession of land) and wild animal cases (abnormally dangerous activity) do not apply here. Therefore, the court adopts the rule from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 518, which holds that an owner of a domestic animal is liable for harm it causes only if the owner was negligent in preventing the harm or intentionally caused it.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and limits the scope of strict liability for animal owners in Maine, aligning the state's common law with the modern majority rule articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. It establishes a clear distinction between the strict liability standard for animal trespass on private land and the negligence standard for harm caused by animals in public places. The ruling shifts the legal burden in cases involving collisions with stray domestic animals on highways, requiring plaintiffs to prove the owner was at fault rather than allowing for automatic recovery. This precedent prevents the expansion of an old common law doctrine to the modern context of high-speed highways, leaving any such policy change to the legislature.
