Sandy v. Bushey
Sandy's horse was on Bushey's property. When Sandy went to feed his horse, Bushey's horse kicked Sandy, causing injury.
- The owner of an animal known to the owner to be vicious is strictly liable for damage caused by the animal. Contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability.
At common law, there was no liability for injury caused by a domestic animal if the animal was in a place where it had right to be. But there was strict liability if the animal caused damage and was known to the owner to be vicious. In this case, the horse was known to Bushey to be vicious.
to escape liability D must show that P actively put himself in a position to bring the injury upon himself. This was NOT the case here. Sandy actually tried to avoid injury by leading the horse away.
Meets 5th element established b/c vicious animals have no place near humans.