Premium
Captive animal liability: 19th century foundations and 20th century modifications
Author(s) -
Bannor Brett
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
zoo biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.5
H-Index - 54
eISSN - 1098-2361
pISSN - 0733-3188
DOI - 10.1002/zoo.10087
Subject(s) - liability , captivity , biology , law , doctrine , supreme court , late 19th century , environmental ethics , political science , zoology , period (music) , philosophy , aesthetics
Two important legal milestones concerning liability for keeping animals in captivity occurred in the years 1879–1881. These were the publication of The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes, and the United States Supreme Court's decision in The Congress and Empire Spring Company v. Ann P. Edgar . Holmes declared that the liability one incurs for maintaining potentially dangerous animals is absolute. The Court's decision noted that wild animals not normally considered ferocious, such as deer, can be considered “domestic” under the law if they are tame, with a corresponding reduction in liability. A brief examination is presented of how the doctrine of captive animal liability was modified in the 20th century to reflect the difference between wild animals kept by a private individual and those maintained by a reputable zoological park. Zoo Biol 22:489–496, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.