“To recover for injuries inflicted by a domestic animal . . . plaintiff must allege and prove: (1) that the animal was dangerous, vicious, mischievous, or ferocious, or one -6- MIMS V. PARKER Opinion of the Court termed in law as possessing a vicious propensity; and (2) that the owner or keeper knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensity[.]” (emphasis added) (citation, emphasis, and quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “To recover for injuries inflicted by a domestic animal . . . plaintiff must allege and prove: (1) that the animal was dangerous, vicious, mischievous, or ferocious, or one -6- MIMS V. PARKER Opinion of the Court termed in law as possessing a vicious propensity; and (2) that the owner or keeper knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensity[.]” (emphasis added) (citation, emphasis, and quotation marks omitted)
- Under the doctrine of animals ferae naturae, a person is a keeper of an animal where the person "undertakes to manage, control, or care for the animal as owners in general are accustomed to do[,]" by tending, feeding, pasturing, boarding, and otherwise "supply[ing the animal] with necessaries of life."
- “To recover for injuries inflicted by a domestic animal . . . plaintiff must allege and prove: (1
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pless, J.,
dissenting: The evidence upon which the son of a recently widowed mother is held to be a “keeper” of the deer is (1) he visited her daily (2) he helped her with her chores, including sometimes feeding the deer (3) so did his children (4) he spoke of it as “my” or “our” deer.
He lived a half mile from his mother and had never kept the deer at his home.
I believe the result penalizes a son who does nothing more than a dutiful child should do for his bereaved mother.
I dissent.