Strange v. Stovall
546 S.W.2d 421, 261 Ark. 53, 1977 Ark. LEXIS 2039 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Arkansas, an owner who keeps a domestic animal known to be vicious is strictly liable for injuries caused by the animal, regardless of the precautions taken by the owner to prevent the animal's escape or attack.
Facts:
- On Christmas Day, 1973, 13-year-old Connie Lynn Strange left her home in Stamps to visit her grandparents, who lived next door.
- On her way, Connie was attacked and bitten by a large dog named Blue John.
- Blue John was owned by Charles and Martha Stovall, Connie’s uncle and aunt, who were visiting her grandparents.
- Charles Stovall had admitted to two witnesses that Blue John was mean and had bitten him several times.
- Mrs. Stovall had also been bitten by Blue John previously.
- The Stovalls had tethered Blue John near the back door.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Strange, as natural guardian and next friend of Connie Lynn Strange, filed a personal injury action against Charles and Martha Stovall in a trial court (court of first instance).
- Plaintiffs' counsel requested the case be submitted to the jury on a strict liability theory.
- The trial judge ruled that strict liability was no longer the law in Arkansas, relying on an amended model jury instruction (AMI 1602).
- The trial court, finding no negligence on the part of the Stovalls, initially ruled that they were entitled to judgment.
- Nevertheless, to prevent a retrial, the trial judge submitted the case to the jury with instructions that included the amended AMI 1602 and instructions on comparative negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict of $2,500 in favor of Charles Strange.
- Charles Strange, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling regarding the applicability of strict liability to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
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 strict liability apply to an owner of a domestic animal known to be vicious for injuries caused by that animal, or is negligence the sole standard of liability in Arkansas?
Opinions:
Majority - George Rose Smith, Justice
Yes, strict liability still applies to an owner of a domestic animal known to be vicious for injuries caused by that animal. The Court holds that its prior cases establishing strict liability for known vicious animals have not been overruled. The Court found that the amended version of AMI 1602 (Arkansas Model Jury Instruction) incorrectly asserted that strict liability was no longer the law in Arkansas, stating that 'the operation went too far.' The Court clarified that strict liability applies regardless of the owner's precautions, even if the owner exercises extreme care to contain the animal and it escapes through no fault of their own. The Court noted that the holding in Finley v. Smith, 240 Ark. 323 (1966), which the AMI revision partly relied upon, actually broadened the scope of what constitutes a dangerous propensity (to include playfulness) but did not impair, and in fact broadened, the rule of strict liability itself. The Court also addressed the AMI's erroneous incorporation of contributory negligence as a complete defense, contrary to the state's comparative negligence statute.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it firmly reaffirms the principle of strict liability for owners of domestic animals known to be vicious in Arkansas, clarifying that such liability is not contingent on the owner's negligence or the precautions taken. It serves as a critical interpretation of the interaction between established common law, statutory law (comparative negligence), and model jury instructions, ensuring that the latter do not inadvertently alter substantive legal principles. The decision prevents a shift towards a negligence-based standard for known vicious animals, reinforcing the idea that ownership of such an animal carries an inherent, non-delegable risk.
