Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Center, Inc.

685 N.E.2d 120 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

For the past thirty years, Schaffer (D) has lived on a fifty-acre farm where she has raised and maintained exotic animals. These included zebras, llamas, camels, kangaroos, and, beginning in 1970, Siberian tigers. Bullington was renting a room in the garage area of D's house. Bullington informed P of d's farm and the animals. P began to stop by and see the animals. Over the next two years, P visited D's farm several dozen times. During these visits, people would occasionally pet the tigers through a fence. P arrived at D's home to see Bullington. The two men drank alcohol and watched television. P had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol. Bullington told P he could stay overnight on the couch as Bullington had to go to a company Christmas party. Bullington left, and eventually, P exited Bullington's apartment, walked to the front of D's property and visited with the llamas and zebras. D drove up, stopped her car, had a brief, friendly conversation with P, and went into her house. P decided to visit the tigers. P went through D's garage, proceeded through the utility room, continued through the sunroom, and ended up in the back yard. P approached the wire cage, as he and others had done in the past, placed a couple of fingers inside the enclosure, and attempted to pet a male tiger. A female tiger made some commotion, which caused Irvine to look away from the male tiger. The male tiger pulled P's arm through the two-inch by six-inch opening of the wire fence. D came out of her house, banged an object against the fence, and freed P. P underwent six surgeries during a thirteen-day hospital stay. Further surgeries are indicated though P is uninsured. P sued Ds for negligence, strict liability, nuisance, and punitives. P filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that incurred risk and assumption of risk are not valid defenses to a strict liability wild animal claim. The trial court denied P's motion for summary judgment on the strict liability count, denied summary judgment on the issue of assumption of risk, and granted summary judgment on the issue of open and obvious. The court certified three issues for interlocutory appeal: 1) whether incurred risk or other defenses are available in a strict liability animal case; 2) whether P was an invitee as a matter of law; and 3) whether the defense of assumption of risk is available in a noncontractual case.