## Facts

- Ray J. Byram drove a tractor-trailer on Interstate 95 in Orono, Maine, and collided with “Meadow,” a pet donkey owned by Peter Main’s daughter.
- Meadow escaped from an enclosure on Main’s property and wandered onto the interstate.
- Byram’s tractor-trailer sustained substantial property damage.
- Byram alleged the animal was not adequately confined; after remand from an earlier appeal, he proceeded only on a strict-liability theory.
- Before the second trial, the parties stipulated to dismiss the negligence count with prejudice, leaving strict liability as the sole theory.

## Issues

1. Whether the owner of a domestic animal that escapes and wanders onto a high-speed public highway is strictly liable for damage resulting from a motor vehicle collision with that animal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the judgment for Byram and remanded with directions to enter judgment for Main.
- The court held strict liability does not apply to an owner of a domestic animal that escapes onto a public highway and is struck by a motor vehicle, absent proof the animal had abnormally dangerous propensities or a statute imposing strict liability.
- The trial court’s reliance on trespass-based strict-liability concepts for an animal “wrongfully” on a highway was rejected.
- Because negligence had been dismissed with prejudice and no strict-liability basis existed, Byram had no remaining viable claim.

## Legal Principles

- For harm caused by domestic animals, liability generally requires either (a) the owner’s negligence in failing to prevent the harm, or (b) proof the animal had dangerous propensities abnormal to its class (supporting strict liability).
- Trespass-based strict liability for domestic animals is tied to invasions of private land interests and does not extend merely because an animal is on a public highway.
- A public highway is not subject to exclusive possession by an individual in a way that supports trespass-based strict liability.
- Absent a statutory directive, courts apply negligence principles rather than strict liability to vehicle collisions with escaped domestic animals on public roads.

## Conclusion

The court limited strict liability for domestic animals to situations involving abnormal dangerous propensities or traditional land-trespass harms and held that collisions on public highways are governed by negligence; with negligence dismissed, judgment was ordered for the animal’s owner.


Byram v. Main, 523 A.2d 1387 (Me. 1987)