Useful Fools

While pleasing to think of in the abstract, I really doubt this developer will actually use dangerous wild animals to guard their property. As their counsel has probably informed them, if they were to do so, they would be strictly liable for anything these animals did, even to trespassers. There is well-established precedent establishing strict liability for the owners of dangerous wild animals, and using the animals in this fashion makes them look like a booby-trap, which also carries liability. I'm sure their general counsel told them they would be fools to actually do this (given the excessive potential liability), but the press announcement may have been all they needed to get the desired result.

Is that true if the property is properly marked?. After all, people use dogs to guard properly, and as one who experienced a single bite from a Doberman, it's clear that they are lethal animals.

Does the precedent allow dangerous domestic animals but not dangerous wild animals? That would seem illogical, and while the law is often perverse, it is rarely illogical.

Good point on guard dogs. In most states, pet owners are not strictly liable for any attacks by their pets, unless the pet shows a tendency to attack humans. At that point, many states make the owner liable for any attacks, because he should have forseen something might happen.

The same holds true for wild animals kept as pets (or guards). A lion is a dangerous animal, and someone shouldn't have to die for the owner to figure it out. Thus, most states make owners of dangerous wild animals strictly liable for any attacks.

I am not aware of a state that does not prohibit booby-traps (even clearly marked ones). There are some pretty famous cases, such as the "spring-gun" cases, which basically say that you do not have the right to inflict grievous bodily harm merely to protect property. Thus, the lions would probably be classified as a booby-trap (or something similar), and the owner would face serious liability for any harm done to intruders on his property.

That's not to say that an owner would be liable if he was present during the break-in and released his lions to attack an intruder posing a direct threat to his safety. At that point, releasing the dogs (or lions) is legal in most states. There, you would not be inflicting death or bodily harm merely to protect property, but for self-defense.

Obviously, states vary widely, and probably none of this applies to outliers like Massachusetts or California.

I can't wait for the CSI episode... ELF traces in Lion-scat ;)

online casinos

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: