AZAPP is a blog that provides a thorough, up-to-date, and efficient resource to stay abreast of significant developments concerning civil cases in Arizona's appellate courts - the two Divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.
AZAPP Update (Subscribe)
Contributors
Archives
AZAPP Blog
<< View Current Articles
Tuesday, February 3, 2004
Booth v. State: Division Two Panel Holds that Ferae Naturae Doctrine Does Not Bar a Negligence Claim Against State for Injury Caused by Elk on the Highway
Plaintiff was severely injured when his car collided with an elk at night on Interstate 40 (I-40). He sued the State for negligently failing to prevent elk from entering portions of I-40 where the presence of Elk was well known. Plaintiff presented evidence at trial that the number of collisions between automobiles and elk or deer within five miles of the site of his collision had dramatically increased in the years prior to the accident. The State had responded by posting additional warning signs but had taken no other action. Plaintiff argued that the State should have erected wildlife fences, created underpasses, and taken other measures to control elk and deer as it had successfully done on Arizona State Route 260.
The State argued, however, that as a matter of law the doctrine of ferae naturae prevents the State from being held liable for injuries caused by indigenous wild animals. The doctrine is based on the notion that a landowner does not own the wild animals on his land (they belong to the people at large) and so cannot be held strictly liable for the acts of such animals on his land. The trial court denied the State’s motions for summary judgment and for judgment as a matter of law. The jury returned “a substantial verdict” for the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to submit the case to the jury. Judge Eckerstrom, writing for the Division Two panel, explained that the doctrine of ferae naturae has not been held to be an absolute bar against negligence claims involving wild animals. According to the panel, few courts have found liability in such circumstances because the risk of wild animals often cannot be reasonably foreseen and protected against. In this case, however, the State conceded that it had a duty to keep highways safe for travelers. Given that, the court was unwilling to conclude that no reasonable jury could have found that the State had breached its duty by failing to take protective measures beyond posting warning signs. The court was also not persuaded by arguments presented by amicus curiae that liability should be precluded based on public policy considerations regarding “the unpredictability of wild animals.” The court explained that its ruling “does not divest trial courts of their gate-keeping function” and that it should not be understood to have said that all claims involving wild animals merit presentation to a jury.
Judges Espinosa and Pelander joined the opinion.
Plaintiff was severely injured when his car collided with an elk at night on Interstate 40 (I-40). He sued the State for negligently failing to prevent elk from entering portions of I-40 where the presence of Elk was well known. Plaintiff presented evidence at trial that the number of collisions between automobiles and elk or deer within five miles of the site of his collision had dramatically increased in the years prior to the accident. The State had responded by posting additional warning signs but had taken no other action. Plaintiff argued that the State should have erected wildlife fences, created underpasses, and taken other measures to control elk and deer as it had successfully done on Arizona State Route 260.
The State argued, however, that as a matter of law the doctrine of ferae naturae prevents the State from being held liable for injuries caused by indigenous wild animals. The doctrine is based on the notion that a landowner does not own the wild animals on his land (they belong to the people at large) and so cannot be held strictly liable for the acts of such animals on his land. The trial court denied the State’s motions for summary judgment and for judgment as a matter of law. The jury returned “a substantial verdict” for the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to submit the case to the jury. Judge Eckerstrom, writing for the Division Two panel, explained that the doctrine of ferae naturae has not been held to be an absolute bar against negligence claims involving wild animals. According to the panel, few courts have found liability in such circumstances because the risk of wild animals often cannot be reasonably foreseen and protected against. In this case, however, the State conceded that it had a duty to keep highways safe for travelers. Given that, the court was unwilling to conclude that no reasonable jury could have found that the State had breached its duty by failing to take protective measures beyond posting warning signs. The court was also not persuaded by arguments presented by amicus curiae that liability should be precluded based on public policy considerations regarding “the unpredictability of wild animals.” The court explained that its ruling “does not divest trial courts of their gate-keeping function” and that it should not be understood to have said that all claims involving wild animals merit presentation to a jury.
Judges Espinosa and Pelander joined the opinion.
