Clark v. Brings
169 N.W.2d 407 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a domesticated animal, such as a cat, is not held strictly liable for injuries it causes. Liability attaches only if the plaintiff can prove that the animal had a known dangerous propensity and that the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of this propensity prior to the injury.
Facts:
- Respondents owned a pet Siamese cat, which they generally kept in the basement to prevent it from scratching furniture.
- The cat shared a furnished basement recreation room with the respondents' three young children, where they often played.
- On a prior occasion, the cat inflicted a 'superficial' bite on another babysitter's ankle while they were engaged in playing with the cat by pulling a spool on a string.
- The respondents were not informed of this prior biting incident.
- The cat had also playfully scratched members of the household on their hands when they were picking it up or handling it.
- The appellant was working as a babysitter for the respondents when their cat, without warning, attacked and bit her, causing extensive injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant (babysitter) filed a lawsuit against the respondents (cat owners) in the trial court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of the respondents.
- A judgment was entered for the respondents pursuant to the directed verdict.
- The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The appellant appealed to the state's highest court from both the judgment and the order denying a new trial.
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 an owner of a domestic cat liable for injuries the cat inflicts on a person when the only prior evidence of aggression consists of a single, provoked bite and playful scratches, which are insufficient to establish the owner's knowledge of a vicious propensity?
Opinions:
Majority - Peterson, Justice.
No. An owner of a domestic cat is not liable for injuries it inflicts without sufficient proof that the owner knew of the cat's vicious propensities. The common law distinguishes between domesticated animals ('domitae naturae'), like cats, and wild animals ('ferae naturae'). To establish liability for a domesticated animal, a plaintiff must prove 'scienter'—that the owner had knowledge of the animal's dangerous nature. The court refused to judicially extend a state statute imposing strict liability on dog owners to cat owners, deeming such a policy change a matter for the legislature. The evidence presented—a single bite provoked by play, playful scratches, and confinement intended to protect furniture—was insufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate that the respondents knew their cat was dangerous. An attack provoked by play is not evidence of viciousness, and therefore, the directed verdict for the respondents was appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common-law 'scienter' action as the standard for liability for domesticated animals, explicitly declining to expand strict liability beyond the scope of legislative statutes. The court's deference to the legislature on this issue signals that changes in liability rules for specific types of pets must come from statutory enactment, not judicial expansion. The case provides a clear benchmark for the level of proof required to demonstrate an owner's knowledge of a pet's dangerousness, establishing that minor, playful, or provoked incidents are insufficient to put an owner on notice of a vicious propensity. This holding protects pet owners from liability for unforeseeable acts of their animals while placing the burden of proof squarely on the injured party.
Unlock the full brief for Clark v. Brings