Law Summary

VII. ANIMALS

1. Generally:
   
   Owners of domestic animals may be held liable for injuries caused by such animals in either strict liability or in negligence. Pahanish v. Western Trails, Inc., 69 Md.App. 342, 517 A.2d 1122 (1986).
   
   
   1. Strict liability: In order for a plaintiff to succeed on a strict liability theory it must be demonstrated that the owner knew or, with reasonable care, should have known that the animal had a propensity to commit the act that was the cause of the harm. Pahanish; Slack v. Villari, 59 Md.App. 462, 476 A.2d 227 (1984) (liability arises from keeping the animal and thus exposing the community to a known danger).
      
      
   2. Negligence: In order for a plaintiff to succeed on a negligence theory it must merely be shown that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling the animal. Pahanish; and that the injury "could reasonably have been anticipated." Moura v. Randall, 119 Md. App. 632, 705 A.2d 334 (1998); Hammond v. Robins, 60 Md.App. 430, 483 A.2d 379 (1984).
      
      
   3. Efforts by local jurisdictions to enforce local enactments creating absolute liability for injuries caused by "at large" animals are void because Maryland law does not impose such a burden on the owner of a domestic animal. Gunpowder Stables v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co., 108 Md.App. 612, 673 A.2d 721 (1996) (invalidating Baltimore County ordinance imposing absolute liability for violation of county's leash law).
      
      
      1. Although evidence of a violation of local jurisdiction's "leash law" may constitute evidence of negligence. Moura v. Randall, 119 Md. App. 632, 705 A.2d 334 (1998).