California First-Year Law Students' Exam (Baby Bar) — MCTortsMedium
A hiker, while exploring a remote area, encountered a chained bear that was part of a private exotic animal collection. Despite clear 'Danger: Wild Animal' signs, the hiker approached the bear to take a closer picture. The bear, agitated by the close proximity, lunged and bit the hiker, causing serious injury. Which defense is most likely to reduce or eliminate the liability of the bear's owner?
- AAssumption of Risk
- BDefense of Property
- CNecessity
- DContributory Negligence
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. Assumption of Risk
Assumption of risk is a strong defense in strict liability cases. The hiker voluntarily encountered a known risk by ignoring warning signs and approaching a wild animal. By doing so, the hiker knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. Defense of property is used to justify force to protect property, not as a defense against strict liability for a wild animal.
- C. Necessity is a defense for trespass, not relevant here.
- D. While the hiker was negligent, contributory negligence is generally not a complete defense to strict liability unless it amounts to assumption of risk.
Assumption of Risk (Strict Liability)
A defense where the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily encountered a known risk created by the defendant's abnormally dangerous activity or wild animal, thereby barring or reducing recovery.
- Plaintiff knew of the risk.
- Plaintiff voluntarily encountered the risk.
- Applies to strict liability cases (abnormally dangerous activities, wild animals).
- Can be express or implied.
Memory trick: Known danger, willing choice, liability's voice.