21. In a suit by the worker against the homeowner based on strict liability in tort to recover for his injury, will the worker prevail?

Strict liability requires proof of the following elements: (i) the nature of the defendant's activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe; (ii) the dangerous aspect of the activity is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (iii) the plaintiff suffered damage to person or property.

The owner of an animal (that is not a household pet) is strictly liable for damage done by the trespass of that animal as long as it was reasonably foreseeable. Strict liability for injuries inflicted by wild or abnormally dangerous domestic animals kept by a landowner will usually be imposed where the person injured came onto the land as an invitee or licensee. If the accident or injury occurs because of a factor that is unrelated to the «dangerous propensities» that are typical of the species in question, there will NOT be strict liability.

D is correct. An owner of a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal is strictly liable for harm caused by that animal's dangerous nature, as long as it was reasonably foreseeable. Here, even though the snake was de-fanged, the worker had no reason to know that. It was reasonably foreseeable to the homeowner that, when someone encounters the snake, they could react by trying to escape it to avoid injury. The fact that the worker injured his arm by trying to escape the snake is a reasonably foreseeable reaction, and as such, strict liability will apply to the homeowner.

A is incorrect. Owners of abnormally dangerous animals are strictly liable for foreseeable consequences of keeping those animals, even when the harm was caused as the result of a force of nature beyond the owner's control, such as the storm.

B is incorrect. An owner of a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous animal is strictly liable for harm caused by that animal's dangerous nature. For an assumption of risk defense to apply, the plaintiff would have to knowingly and voluntarily disregard a risk, which is not what occurred here. The facts give no indication that the worker would have any reason to know that a poisonous snake would be in the home.

C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The worker will prevail in a strict liability action against the homeowner, but not because of the inadequacy of the homeowner's precautions. This implies a reasonableness analysis for the homeowner's conduct, which would be relevant in negligence, not strict liability. Here, strict liability applies because the homeowner kept a large, poisonous snake, an abnormally dangerous animal. The homeowner will be strictly liable because he was under an absolute duty to make safe, and the worker suffered an injury that was reasonably foreseeable based on the decision to keep this type of animal in his home.