You may have heard about "dog bite" statutes. These make owners strictly liable for injuries caused when their dog bites someone. What about a bite from a poisonous snake? Although a poisonous snake bite is very rare, it can be deadly and very expensive to treat.
There are a few concepts that apply. The first is strict liability for "wild animals." Lions, tigers, bears, elephants, wolves, monkeys, and sharks have been characterized as wild animals. Rosenbloom v. Hanour Corp., (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1479 An owner of a wild animal is strictly liable to persons who are injured by the animal: "In such instances the owner is an insurer against the acts of the animal, to one who is injured without fault, and the question of the owner's negligence is not in the case."
Opelt v. Al G. Barnes Co., (1919) 41 Cal.App. 776, 779. Presumably, a snake would also qualify as a "wild animal."
If a poisonous snake is not considered a "wild animal," it would certainly be considered an animal with a "dangerous propensity." California has long followed the common law rule of strict liability for harm done by a domestic animal with known vicious or dangerous propensities abnormal to its class." Drake v. Dean, (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 921. Any propensity that is likely to cause injury under the circumstances is a dangerous or vicious propensity within the meaning of the law.
Talizin v. Oak Creek Riding Club, (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 429, 437. So if the owner of the snake knew of the dangerous propensity of the
poisonous snake (which it should know), then they can be strictly liable.
Even ignoring strict liability for dangerous animal attacks, the fact is that people must be extremely careful when they deal with dangerous items or participate in dangerous activities, and the risk of harm is so great that the failure to use extreme caution is negligence. See CACI 414 (Amount of Caution Required in Dangerous Situations). In fact, the example usually used in law school to illustrate this point is as follows: If you are carrying a dead rattlesnake through a crowd of children, you do not need to be particularly careful. If that poisonous snake is alive, you need to be very careful
Depending on how an animal attack happens, the defense may argue that you are at least partially responsible for the accident. This is the argument of "assumption of the risk," that you knew of the risk and agreed to deal with it.
Pete Clancy is a personal injury attorney in Oakland. He is a life member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, a SuperLawyers Magazine "Rising Star" in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2103, and a member of the "40 under 40."