Jay H. Rhodes v. Rodney MacHugh
PUBLISHED OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2015 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of a domestic animal is subject to strict liability for harm caused by the animal only if the owner knew or had reason to know of that specific animal's abnormally dangerous propensities. Strict liability is not imposed based solely on the general dangerous tendencies of a particular gender or breed of that domestic animal, such as a ram.
Facts:
- Jay Rhodes and Rodney MacHugh were longtime friends and neighbors who both farmed.
- Rhodes allowed MacHugh to keep some of his livestock on Rhodes's property.
- In the summer of 2012, MacHugh purchased an eight or nine-month-old ram, which he selected because it was friendly and had been bottle-fed.
- The ram was kept on Rhodes's property, where for about a month it behaved in a friendly manner, and Rhodes would pet it.
- MacHugh then placed the ram in a pasture with several female sheep (ewes).
- On August 20, 2012, as Rhodes entered the pasture to turn on his sprinklers, the ram attacked him from behind.
- The ram repeatedly butted Rhodes, knocking him unconscious and causing severe injuries including a concussion, five broken ribs, and a broken sternum and shoulder.
Procedural Posture:
- Jay Rhodes filed a lawsuit against Rodney MacHugh in the trial court to recover for his injuries.
- Rhodes's claim was based exclusively on a theory of strict liability, and he did not allege negligence.
- MacHugh filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing he was not strictly liable because he had no knowledge the ram was abnormally dangerous.
- The trial court granted MacHugh's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Rhodes's complaint.
- Rhodes, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Washington Court of Appeals.
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 ram that causes harm, based solely on the generally known dangerous tendencies of rams, when the owner had no knowledge that the specific ram was abnormally dangerous?
Opinions:
Majority - Siddoway, C. J.
No, the doctrine of strict liability does not apply to the owner of a domestic ram based solely on the general dangerous tendencies of the gender. Long-standing Washington common law holds that for strict liability to attach to the owner of a domestic animal, it must be shown that the owner had knowledge (scienter) of the specific animal's vicious or abnormally dangerous propensities. The court declined to adopt the suggestion in the Restatement (Third) of Torts to create a new category of strict liability for specific genders of domestic animals. It reasoned that the existing negligence framework, which requires a level of care 'commensurate with the character of the animal,' sufficiently addresses the increased risk posed by animals like rams, bulls, and stallions. The court also noted the social utility of these male animals for breeding purposes as a policy reason for not imposing strict liability as a default rule.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Washington's traditional common law rule regarding liability for domestic animals, cementing the requirement of scienter for strict liability claims. The court explicitly considered and rejected the modern trend suggested by the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which contemplates creating categorical strict liability for certain breeds or genders. This holding clarifies that the path to recovery for injuries caused by a domestic animal without known vicious propensities lies in negligence, not strict liability. The opinion signals that any expansion of strict liability in this area, similar to the state's dog-bite statute, would likely require legislative action rather than judicial reinterpretation.
