Collins v. Otto
1962 Colo. LEXIS 459, 369 p.2d 564, 149 Colo. 489 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who harbors a wild animal (ferae naturae), which is by its nature vicious and unpredictable, is strictly liable for any injuries inflicted by that animal. The owner's knowledge of the animal's viciousness and the victim's potential contributory negligence are not valid defenses.
Facts:
- The Ottos owned a pet coyote, which they kept on a 15-foot chain in their yard.
- The coyote had recently given birth to a litter of puppies, and some were still with her.
- The Ottos had a custom of not letting children pet the coyote unless an adult was present and had warned neighborhood children accordingly.
- A four-year-old child, David, was visiting and playing in the Ottos' backyard.
- Mr. Otto gave one of the coyote's puppies to David to pet while in the presence of the mother coyote.
- The mother coyote attacked David, inflicting extensive bites and lacerations to his forehead, eyelid, face, ears, and head.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, a four-year-old child, sued the defendants (the Ottos) in a Colorado trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At the close of evidence, the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the issue of liability, arguing the only remaining question was damages.
- The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion and submitted the questions of the defendants' negligence and the child's contributory negligence to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment entered upon the jury's verdict.
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 wild animal, such as a coyote, strictly liable for injuries caused by the animal, thereby precluding defenses like lack of knowledge of viciousness or the victim's contributory negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Day
Yes. An owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for injuries it causes. The law is virtually universal that one who harbors a wild animal does so at their peril, and liability for injuries inflicted by such an animal is absolute. This rule is based on the wrongful conduct of keeping a dangerous animal, and the owner is conclusively presumed to have knowledge of the animal's vicious nature. Since the basis of the action is the keeping of the animal, traditional negligence principles, including the defense of contributory negligence, do not apply. A coyote is legally defined as a predatory and wild animal, so there was no question of liability for the jury to decide; the only issue was the extent of the plaintiff's damages.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the common law doctrine of strict liability for keepers of wild animals (ferae naturae) within the jurisdiction. By rejecting defenses rooted in negligence, such as lack of knowledge (scienter) and contributory negligence, the court establishes a clear, bright-line rule. This treats the owner of a wild animal as an insurer for any harm it may cause, prioritizing public safety over an individual's right to harbor inherently dangerous animals. The ruling simplifies future litigation involving wild animals by focusing the court's inquiry on causation and damages, rather than on the defendant's state of mind or the plaintiff's conduct.
