Jacques captured a large rattlesnake while on a camping trip and brought it home to his apartment in the city. He kept the snake in a glass aquarium which he had covered with a wire screen. One day, after feeding the snake, he accidentally failed to fasten the screen cover and the snake escaped from the aquarium. The snake managed to enter the adjoining apartment by way of an open balcony door. The occupant of the adjoining apartment was bitten and seriously injured when she accidentally stepped on the snake. The courts would likely apply the concept of strict liability to Jacques. 单项选择题
A
True
B
False

Question

Jacques captured a large rattlesnake while on a camping trip and brought it home to his apartment in the city. He kept the snake in a glass aquarium which he had covered with a wire screen. One day, after feeding the snake, he accidentally failed to fasten the screen cover and the snake escaped from the aquarium. The snake managed to enter the adjoining apartment by way of an open balcony door. The occupant of the adjoining apartment was bitten and seriously injured when she accidentally stepped on the snake. The courts would likely apply the concept of strict liability to Jacques. 单项选择题

A

True

B

False

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

First, let's restate the scenario and the two options to ensure clarity.
- Question setup: Jacques captured a large rattlesnake and kept it in an aquarium in his city apartment. After a cover was left unsecured, the snake escaped and entered an adjoining apartment, where the occupant was bitten and seriously injured.
- Answer options: True or False, regarding whether the courts would likely apply strict liability to Jacques.

Option 1: True
- The core idea of strict liability in tort law is that a person can be held legally responsible for certain kinds of harms even absent negligence. A classic trigger for strict liability is the keeping of dangerous animals, such as a rattlesnake, which poses a heightened risk of harm to others. In many jurisdictions, the keeper of a dangerous animal is liable for injuries caused by that animal, regardless of whether the keeper acted negligently. Here, Jacques was in charge of a dangerous creature, and the injury occurred when the snake escaped and bitten someone else. This matches the typical doctrine of strict liability for dangerous animals, making liability easier to impose even if Jacques had taken reasonable precautions.
- Supporting points: The risk is inherent to the animal, not to a specific act of care or fault. The fact that the injury happened outside Jacques’ own apartment (into a neighboring unit) does not remove the risk or the liability; the animal is the source of the danger, and the keeper bears responsibility for harm caused by that source.
- Potential counterpoints addressed: Some jurisdictions require proof of maintenance of the animal or a failure to take reasonable precautions; however, strict liability often still attaches because the activity (keeping a dangerous animal) is inherently hazardous. The question asks what the courts would likely apply; given the nature of the animal and the injury, strict liability is a plausible and common outcome.

Option 2: False
- Arguing False would require showing that strict liability does not apply here, perhaps by emphasizing negligence as a required element or arguing that the escape was due to a lack of foreseeability or control that negates strict liability. While it is true that some tort theories require showing negligence or a breach of duty, many cases create an exception for dangerous animals where liability attaches regardless of care taken. The presence of the open balcony door leading to an injury does not eliminate the risk or the animal’s inherent danger, so this argument struggles to negate strict liability in standard formulations.
- Another angle might be to claim that Jacques’ actions (e.g., attempting to cover the snake, feeding it, or only failing to fasten the screen cover) are too remote to infer liability under strict liability. However, strict liability specifically focuses on the dangerous nature of the activity or the animal, not on the level of care or foreseeability. Thus, this line of reasoning misapplies the doctrine by requiring fault where none is necessary.

Overall assessment: The question centers on whether the keeper of a dangerous animal (a rattlesnake) can be subjected to strict liability for injuries caused by that animal, even without proving negligence. The dangerous-animal doctrine commonly supports liability regardless of fault, making True the more defensible choice. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that some jurisdictions may frame liability differently or require a showing of some control issue, but the weight of typical strict liability doctrine in tort over dangerous animals supports True here.

类似问题

Under what legal doctrine does a firm bear legal responsibility for injuries caused by something it made or sold, whether or not it was negligent?

An example of an ultra-hazardous activity is the manufacturing of dynamite.

A rule of strict liability leads to...

In a strict liability case, if it can be proved that a business was as careful as possible about its product or service, it is not held liable for the harm that results from its use.

Consolidated Trucking Company transports radioactive materials. Darla suffers from cancer. To succeed in a strict liability action against Consolidated, Darla must show that her injury was caused by

Strict liability in tort requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was intentional.

Strict liability may hold manufacturers responsible for their products even if they acted with due diligence and reasonable care.

To sue for strict liability, privity is not required.

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单