How does strict liability apply to a plaintiff's fearful reaction to an unrestrained wild animal?

In the context of strict liability, when a person is confronted with a wild animal, the reaction that follows can indeed be significant, even if there is no actual attack from the animal. Strict liability holds an owner responsible for harm caused by their wild animals, regardless of fault or intention. This concept extends to the emotional and psychological impact on a plaintiff, which includes their fearful reaction to being in the presence of an unrestrained wild animal.

Therefore, the correct understanding is that if a plaintiff experiences fear due to the sight of a wild animal, this reaction can be sufficient to establish a claim under strict liability, particularly when that fear leads to a form of injury, such as psychological distress. This aligns with the broader interpretation of safety and societal expectations surrounding the ownership of inherently dangerous animals. The law recognizes the potential for severe emotional responses in such encounters, thus supporting the idea that injuries arising from fear of harm are valid within the framework of strict liability.

The other choices do not align with this principle, as they focus on restrictive interpretations of strict liability, neglecting the broader implications of emotional harm related to wild animals.