Sandy v. Bushey
124 Me. 320, 128 A. 513, 1925 Me. LEXIS 25 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The keeper of a domestic animal known to be vicious is held to a standard of strict liability for injuries caused by the animal. The owner's liability can only be overcome if the injured party, with full knowledge of the animal's propensities, voluntarily and unnecessarily brought the injury upon themselves.
Facts:
- In the summer of 1923, the plaintiff and the defendant both kept their horses in a shared pasture owned by a neighbor.
- The defendant's three-year-old colt had previously exhibited a vicious and ugly disposition on multiple occasions.
- The defendant had knowledge of the colt's vicious propensities prior to the incident.
- On July 14, 1923, the plaintiff entered the pasture to feed his mare.
- While the plaintiff was occupied with his mare, the defendant's colt approached threateningly; the plaintiff drove it away.
- The defendant's colt then returned silently and swiftly, kicking the plaintiff and causing serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff brought an action on the case against the defendant in a trial court to recover damages for his injuries.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
- The defendant, as the losing party, filed a general motion with the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, sitting as the Law Court, seeking to have the jury's verdict overturned.
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 a plaintiff's contributory negligence bar recovery in an action against the keeper of a domestic animal with known vicious propensities, where liability is not predicated on negligence but on strict liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Sturgis, J.
No. A plaintiff’s recovery for injuries caused by a known vicious animal is not barred by their own ordinary negligence. In jurisdictions like Maine that follow the common law rule, the keeper of a known vicious animal is an insurer against injury by such an animal, and liability is founded upon the keeping of the animal itself, not on negligence. Because negligence is not the basis of liability, contributory negligence in its strict sense is not a defense. To be relieved of liability, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff, with knowledge of the animal's character, voluntarily and unnecessarily put himself in a position to be injured, thereby bringing the calamity upon himself. Here, the plaintiff's actions of driving the colt away and returning to feed his own horse did not constitute such voluntary self-exposure, as the subsequent attack was swift and unexpected.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Maine's adherence to the traditional common law rule of strict liability for keepers of known vicious animals, explicitly rejecting the modern trend of applying a negligence standard. The case clarifies that simple contributory negligence is not a valid defense in these actions. By establishing a high bar for a defense—requiring proof that the plaintiff essentially assumed the risk by voluntarily and knowingly inviting the injury—the court solidifies the owner's role as an 'insurer' and makes it significantly more difficult for such owners to evade responsibility for the harm their animals cause.
Unlock the full brief for Sandy v. Bushey