What is the basis for strict liability concerning the owner of a wild animal?

The basis for strict liability concerning the owner of a wild animal lies in the principle that the owner is responsible for any harm caused by the animal's dangerous propensities. This means that if the wild animal behaves in a way that inflicts harm or causes damage, the owner can be held liable without the need for the injured party to prove negligence or fault. The rationale behind this rule is that wild animals possess inherent risks and dangers that are not typical of domesticated animals. Therefore, their keepers are expected to bear the responsibility for any injuries or damages that result from the animal's behavior, reflecting a broader societal interest in preventing harm.

In contrast, the other choices illustrate different misconceptions about liability related to wild animals. Liability not being contingent on an attack captures the essence of strict liability, which focuses on the animal's propensities rather than specific actions. The concept that precautions can serve to avoid liability goes against the nature of strict liability, where fault or precautions are irrelevant to the imposition of liability. Lastly, the idea that liability is limited to scenarios where the animal is on the owner’s property doesn't align with the expansive nature of strict liability, which applies regardless of the animal's location. Instead, owning a wild animal carries an inherent responsibility