Animal Injuries: Traditionally, laws concerning injuries caused by animals were pretty simple. In particular, most locations had (either explicitly or implicitly) a first bite rule concerning injuries sustained as a result of dog bites. That is, an owner was not typically liable for the harm suffered by a bite from that persons dog for the first instance, but thereafter, the owner would essentially be warned that a second occurrence would incur liability for the owner. However, some locations have eliminated this and have moved to what amounts to a strict liability rule, where an owner is liable for all injuries resulting from the animals bites (or other injuries).

Contrast this to the rules applied to wild animals, where strict liability has consistently been the law. Consider the case below to illustrate this possibility.

• Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Center [RFBC] (685 N.E. 2d 120, 1997) This case concerns the events at a farm owned by Mosella Schaeffer (RFBC), who raised and sheltered exotic animals, including zebras, llama, kangaroos, and more recently, Siberian tigers. Irvine was visiting a friend (Scott Bullington) who rented an apartment on the farm. Irvine had visited the farm on several occasions over the previous two years, and he and Bullington would visit with a variety of the animals housed on the property. On the date in question, Irvine and Bullington had been drinking alcohol during the afternoon. Bullington left to attend a party, leaving Irvine at his apartment, to sleep off his intoxication. Later in the day, Irvine decided to visit the tiger enclosure before he went to sleep for the evening. To do this, he had to walk through Schaeffers garage, then into and through Schaffers house to reach the backyard where the tigers were housed. He was attempting to pet the male tiger when the female tiger caused a commotion. This diverted Irvines attention and at that point, the male tiger pulled Irvines arm through the fence and seriously injured Irvines arm. Schaeffer, upon hearing the noise, rushed out to free Irvine and then drove him to the hospital. Irvines injuries ultimately required six separate surgeries. Following this, Irvine filed suit against Schaeffer, making a claim (among other things) of strict liability. The court accepted the terms of the Restatement listed below, finding for the defendant.
• The Restatement (Second) of Torts has six factors to be considered in determining whether an activity is "abnormally dangerous" and therefore subject to the rule of absolute liability. The factors are:

• • existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others;
  • likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;
  • inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
  • extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
  • inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and
  • extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes

(c) Compare the two regimes: the first bite rule for dogs (and other domestic pets) versus the strict liability rule for wild animals. In doing so, you should discuss how you would rule in the Irvine case.

(d) Discuss the effects of the animal rules (effects on incentives, etc.) on behavior.

(e) Finally, contrast the implications of these two different scenarios (i.e., the Palsgraf case and animal liability rules) in the context of developing an efficient set of tort rules.