Responsibilities Placed On The Owner of an Exotic Animal

Ontario has banned the ownership of a pit bull within the province. Still, any resident has the right to own an exotic animal. That fact suggests an element of danger, if the same resident and animal owner has failed to carry out all of his or her responsibilities.

How the rules regarding negligence relate to ownership of an exotic species:

Unlike a domesticated pet, an exotic beast is a wild creature. Indeed, there is a strong chance that the same creature might choose to attack a stranger. Furthermore, it would not understand that a visitor does not share the same status as a stranger.

In light of those two factual statements, the owner of an exotic animal should make sure that it does not attack other people. Consequently, those owners that have not invested in the establishment of precautionary measures could be hit with a charge of negligence. Those same owners have failed to demonstrate their expected duty of care.

The owner of an exotic species has eliminated one of the ready defenses that might be used, if that same species were to attack a guest. The owner of a pet dog can argue that he or she did not realize that the same canine might attack someone. In contrast to that possible defensive argument, someone that owns a wild/exotic creature should know that the same beast might harm anyone that gets too close.

What sort of precautionary measures should that lover of exotics put in place?

The Personal Injury Lawyer in Oakville knows that the law requires the utilization of reasonable precautionary measures. Does that mean employment of a barrier or other device that seems sure to protect those that step into an area that is close to the dangerous beast? If it were a barrier, it would need to be quite sturdy. It would probably have to be decidedly high. Maybe it would need to have some type of top.

If it were a device, it might be a very heavy chain. Alternately, it could be an island surrounded by a moat. Of course, it would not seem reasonable to expect that any property owner should transform a purchased piece of land into an island with a moat. After all, that is the type of protection used in zoos.

So, what is the meaning of the phrase reasonable precaution? Does it refer to something that society would most-likely view as a reasonable structure? Does it serve as a reference to a structure that someone could construct with a limited amount of effort; or does it refer to something that can be trusted by a reasonable person to hold-in a dangerous/exotic creature? Should members of the legal profession seek to clarify the exact meaning of that phrase?