Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Ctr.
685 N.E.2d 120 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While the owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm caused by the animal's dangerous propensities, the owner may assert the defense that the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjected themselves to the risk of harm.
Facts:
- For thirty years, Mosella Schaffer raised exotic animals, including Siberian tigers, on her fifty-acre farm.
- Scott Irvine, a friend of Schaffer's tenant, visited the farm several dozen times over two years, and people would occasionally pet the tigers through a fence during these visits.
- On the evening of December 2, 1995, after consuming a substantial amount of alcohol, Irvine was staying overnight at the farm.
- After his friend left, Irvine had a brief, friendly conversation with Schaffer on the property before she went into her house.
- Around 8:00 p.m., Irvine walked through several rooms and into Schaffer's back yard to the tiger enclosure.
- Irvine placed his fingers inside the enclosure to pet a male tiger.
- While Irvine was distracted by a female tiger, the male tiger pulled his arm through the wire fence, causing severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Irvine filed a four-count complaint against Mosella Schaffer in an Indiana trial court.
- Irvine filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the strict liability count, arguing that defenses such as incurred risk and assumption of risk are not valid in such cases.
- The trial court denied Irvine’s motion for summary judgment on the strict liability count.
- The trial court granted Irvine’s petition to certify three issues for an interlocutory appeal.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction of the appeal.
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 a plaintiff's action of knowingly and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk of harm from a wild animal a valid defense to a strict liability claim against the animal's owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Chezem, J.
Yes. A plaintiff's action of knowingly and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk of harm from a wild animal is a defense to a strict liability claim. The court first established that Indiana common law recognizes strict liability for keepers of wild animals and that the state's Comparative Fault Act does not apply to strict liability actions. As a matter of first impression, the court adopted the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which tempers the harshness of strict liability by allowing certain defenses. Specifically, under § 515 of the Restatement, a plaintiff who 'knowingly and unreasonably subject[s] himself to the risk that a wild animal ... will do harm' is barred from recovery. This defense, often called incurred risk or assumption of risk, applies when a person, without a necessity commensurate with the risk, knowingly places themselves within reach of a dangerous animal that is otherwise confined. The court found that this approach aligns with Indiana's policy regarding the allocation of fault and provides a balanced rule for these unique cases.
Analysis:
This case is significant as a matter of first impression in Indiana, formally establishing two key principles for wild animal liability. First, it affirms that the common law doctrine of strict liability applies to keepers of wild animals. Second, and more importantly, it adopts the modern approach from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which allows for plaintiff-conduct defenses like incurred risk (or assumption of risk). This decision prevents strict liability from becoming absolute liability, ensuring that a plaintiff who knowingly and unreasonably courts a known danger cannot recover. The ruling aligns Indiana with the majority of jurisdictions and sets a clear precedent that a plaintiff's own venturous conduct is a crucial factor in wild animal cases.
Unlock the full brief for Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Ctr.