## Facts

- Mr. and Mrs. Behrens, a married couple of very short stature, worked in an exhibition booth in a funfair adjoining the defendant’s circus at Olympia, London, under a licence from the defendant.
- The defendant kept six female Burmese elephants used in circus performances; the elephants regularly passed along a route near the plaintiffs’ booth while escorted by staff.
- The plaintiffs’ manager kept a small dog in the booth’s pay box, despite a rule prohibiting dogs on the premises.
- As the elephants passed, the dog ran out barking and snapping at an elephant; the elephant pursued the dog and other elephants followed.
- The plaintiffs’ booth was knocked down; Mrs. Behrens was seriously injured by falling parts of the booth. No elephant directly attacked either plaintiff.
- Mr. Behrens suffered shock and distress; he also did not work during his wife’s incapacity, and the court treated that decision as reasonable in the circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether elephants are legally classified as wild and dangerous animals (*ferae naturae*) so that their keeper is subject to strict liability despite training and apparent tameness.
2. Whether strict liability for wild animals is limited to harm caused by “vicious and savage” acts, or extends to harm caused by natural reactions (e.g., alarm) combined with the animal’s size and power.
3. Whether the plaintiffs’ presence and work near the elephants amounted to *volenti non fit injuria* (voluntary assumption of the relevant risk).
4. Whether the manager’s wrongful act in introducing the dog broke the chain of causation or constituted contributory negligence, and if so whether that fault could be attributed to reduce either plaintiff’s recovery under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
5. Whether, and to what extent, damages were recoverable for shock or fright absent proof of physical or recognized psychiatric harm.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed liability against the circus on a strict-liability basis.
- Elephants were treated, as a matter of law, as dangerous wild animals for strict-liability purposes; training and docility did not alter that classification.
- Strict liability was not confined to injury caused by “viciousness”; it extended to characteristic risks of the species, including loss of control due to fear or alarm and the harm resulting from the animal’s size and weight.
- The *volenti* defence failed; working at the circus under licence did not amount to consenting to the risk of injury from elephants being out of control.
- Contributory negligence principles could apply in strict-liability cases, but fault was not imputed to a blameless claimant merely because of a relationship to the wrongdoer; the manager’s misconduct was not attributed to reduce Mrs. Behrens’ personal-injury recovery.
- Damages for Mr. Behrens’ fright were limited to the extent the shock resulted in physical or mental harm; “mere fright” was not compensable.

## Legal Principles

- Keepers of wild animals are strictly liable for damage of a kind characteristic of the species when the animal is out of the keeper’s control, even if the individual animal is tame and highly trained.
- For *ferae naturae*, strict liability is not limited to harm caused by savage or aggressive propensities; it includes harm flowing from the species’ dangerous characteristics (including size and power) and ordinary reactions such as alarm.
- *Volenti non fit injuria* requires clear consent to the specific risk and an agreement to waive the defendant’s duty; mere participation in an activity near dangerous animals is insufficient.
- Contributory negligence can reduce damages in strict-liability claims when the claimant’s own fault contributes to the harm, but one claimant’s fault is not automatically attributed to another claimant.
- Compensation for shock or fright is constrained without proof that the shock produced physical injury or a recognized mental condition.

## Conclusion

The court imposed strict liability on a circus for injuries caused when its elephants, treated as dangerous wild animals, ran out of control and destroyed a nearby booth; it rejected consent-to-risk, refused to impute a third party’s fault to a blameless claimant, and limited recovery for fright to cases involving physical or mental harm.


Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd., [1957] 2 Q.B. 1 (C.A.)