P put his horses in a D's pasture, with his permission.
P went to feed his horses and was kicked by D's horse.
P sued D in strict liability.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P, strict liability valid.
ME Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, strict liability valid.
Issues:
When should strict liability be imposed on keeping a domestic animal?
Holding/Rule:
Owners or keepers of domestic animals are not liable for an injury done in a place where the animals have a right to be unless the animal is vicious, and the owner knows the animal is vicious.
Reasoning:
P must only allege and prove the keeping, the vicious propensities, and the scienter.
D knew about the horse's violent tendencies.
Contributory negligence cannot be applied in this case since strict liability is imposed.
However, if a person who knows the evil propensities of an animal wantonly excites him or voluntarily puts himself in the way of such animal, he should not recover.
P was not wanton, possibly only slightly negligent, so he should not be barred from recovery.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
Contributory negligence is not a bar to strict liability claims.
