In which scenario can a plaintiff pursue recovery for injuries caused by fear of an unrestrained animal?

In the context of pursuing recovery for injuries that arise from the fear of an unrestrained animal, option C is the correct answer because it aligns with the legal principle that allows individuals to claim damages for mental distress or emotional harm linked to their fear when they observe a dangerous animal.

When a plaintiff sees a wild or unrestrained animal and experiences a reasonable fear for their safety, this fear can be sufficient grounds for a legal claim. This principle acknowledges that mere witnessing of a threatening situation can cause psychological harm, which is regarded as actionable in some jurisdictions, especially if the fear is warranted based on the circumstances. In such cases, the plaintiff does not necessarily have to interact with the animal or be in immediate danger; the perception of danger can create legitimate claims for emotional distress.

This notion is supported by the idea that individuals should not be compelled to confront a threatening situation physically to seek redress for the emotional distress it causes. Other options do not fulfill the required criteria since they either involve confrontations or specific relationships that do not inherently lead to a recovery for fear-related injuries without a direct threat or harm being present. Hence, seeing the animal and experiencing fear under that context is a valid foundation for pursuing recovery.