A zoo visitor is bitten by a dangerous animal. Which common law doctrine would apply to the liability?

• A. Strict liability
• B. Negligence liability
• C. Vicarious liability
• D. Res ipsa loquitur

Answer: (B)

Premises liability for a visitor bitten by a dangerous animal is evaluated under negligence. The zoo has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep its premises and activities safe for invitees, which includes proper enclosures, barriers, supervision, and warnings around dangerous animals. If a bite occurs, the question becomes whether the zoo failed to meet that duty—whether its safety measures were reasonable given the risk—and whether that failure caused the injury. The fact that the animal is dangerous does not automatically convert the claim into strict liability; the liability rests on whether the zoo acted as a reasonably careful operator under the circumstances.

Res ipsa loquitur would only apply if the injury were the type that typically indicates negligence and the zoo had exclusive control of the instrumentality, and even then it would require showing a breach. Vicarious liability would come into play if a zoo employee caused the injury in the course of employment, which shifts responsibility for the employee’s actions rather than the animal’s bite itself. So, negligence liability best explains the scenario.