Under what circumstances is the owner of a domestic animal strictly liable for harm caused by that animal?

The owner of a domestic animal is strictly liable for harm caused by that animal when the owner knew or had reason to know about the animal's dangerous propensities. This principle is rooted in the idea that owners are responsible for the actions of their pets, especially if they are aware of any tendencies that may pose a risk to others.

If an owner has prior knowledge of an animal's aggressive behavior or a propensity to cause harm, they have a duty to manage that risk to prevent injuries. This understanding creates strict liability in situations where these known propensities lead to harm, ensuring that victims can seek compensation without needing to demonstrate negligence on the owner's part.

In contrast, if the owner had no knowledge of these propensities, they may not be held strictly liable for harm caused by the animal. Similarly, the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff, such as whether they were trespassing or if the animal had only attacked once without any prior incidents demonstrating a propensity for violence, do not inherently establish the owner's liability. Therefore, knowledge of the animal's dangerous tendencies is a critical factor in applying strict liability for animal-related injuries.