Response Guidelines After posting to this discussion, read the postings from other students. Respond to at least one other post and identify concerns about the analysis, and ask additional questions that would help clarify the position taken. This discussion will analyze whether Pete is entitled to recover against Ocean World under a strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities/animals theory and whether his parents are entitled to recover for their emotional distress under that theory. An owner/possessor of an animal with dangerous tendencies may be subject to strict liability if a person suffers physical harm from the abnormally dangerous tendency of the animal. Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. “Strict liability under §§20-23 does not apply if the person suffers physical or emotional harm as a result of making contact with or coming into proximity to the defendant’s animal or abnormally dangerous activity for the purpose of securing some benefit from that contact or that proximity.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 24. An activity is abnormally dangerous and subject to strict liability if there is a “highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors” and “the activity is not one of common usage.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §20. In this case, Ocean World has an attraction featuring their famous killer whale, Jaws. Pete suffered serious physical injuries when Jaws launched himself out of the tank as Pete walked near the edge of it. To be held strictly liable, Ocean World must have known or had reason to know that Jaws had “dangerous tendencies abnormal for the animal’s category.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. However, “if the plaintiff is a patron of the zoo, exposed to wild animals because of the benefits the plaintiff secures by visiting the zoo, the plaintiff is beyond the scope the defendant’s strict liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm §24 cmt a. Pete is beyond the scope of Ocean World’s strict liability and is not entitled to recover against Ocean World under a strict liability theory because, if reasonable care had been exercised by all actors, visiting the tanks would not have carried a significant risk of physical harm. Pete’s parents did not see Jaws’s attack on Pete, but they heard him scream and suffered severe emotional distress when they saw him. Their perception of the event is not limited to sight, but the parents must have contemporaneously perceived the incident to recover for their emotional distress. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48, cmt. e (2012). If they do recover, the recovery may be reduced because of their own negligent supervision of Pete which enabled him “to wander to a dangerous area” where, due to Ocean World’s negligence, Pete was injured. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48, cmt. d (2012). Although Pete and his parents may recover for their harm, they will not be able to do so under the theory of strict liability.

/animals theory and whether his parents are entitled to recover for their emotional distress under that theory.

An owner/possessor of an animal with dangerous tendencies may be subject to strict liability if a person suffers physical harm from the abnormally dangerous tendency of the animal. Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. “Strict liability under §§20-23 does not apply if the person suffers physical or emotional harm as a result of making contact with or coming into proximity to the defendant’s animal or abnormally dangerous activity for the purpose of securing some benefit from that contact or that proximity.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 24. An activity is abnormally dangerous and subject to strict liability if there is a “highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors” and “the activity is not one of common usage.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §20.

In this case, Ocean World has an attraction featuring their famous killer whale, Jaws. Pete suffered serious physical injuries when Jaws launched himself out of the tank as Pete walked near the edge of it. To be held strictly liable, Ocean World must have known or had reason to know that Jaws had “dangerous tendencies abnormal for the animal’s category.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. However, “if the plaintiff is a patron of the zoo, exposed to wild animals because of the benefits the plaintiff secures by visiting the zoo, the plaintiff is beyond the scope the defendant’s strict liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm §24 cmt a. Pete is beyond the scope of Ocean World’s strict liability and is not entitled to recover against Ocean World under a strict liability theory because, if reasonable care had been exercised by all actors, visiting the tanks would not have carried a significant risk of physical harm.

Pete’s parents did not see Jaws’s attack on Pete, but they heard him scream and suffered severe emotional distress when they saw him. Their perception of the event is not limited to sight, but the parents must have contemporaneously perceived the incident to recover for their emotional distress. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48, cmt. e (2012). If they do recover, the recovery may be reduced because of their own negligent supervision of Pete which enabled him “to wander to a dangerous area” where, due to Ocean World’s negligence, Pete was injured. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48, cmt. d (2012).

Although Pete and his parents may recover for their harm, they will not be able to do so under the theory of strict liability.