## Facts

- Jeanette Clotilde Clark, a teenage babysitter, was hired to watch Keith M. Brings and his wife’s three young children in their home.
- While babysitting, Clark was attacked without warning and bitten by the Bringses’ pet Siamese cat, allegedly causing extensive injuries.
- Clark sought damages, claiming the cat had dangerous propensities and that the owners knew or should have known of them.
- Evidence included testimony that a former babysitter had previously been bitten and that the cat was often confined to the basement.
- The prior bite occurred when the cat was excited during play; the owners stated the cat was confined mainly to prevent furniture damage, not because it was considered vicious.
- At the close of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, denied a new trial, and entered judgment; Clark appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Minnesota should impose strict liability on cat owners by changing the common law or by extending Minn. Stat. § 347.22 (the dog-bite statute) to cats.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient under the common-law scienter doctrine to prove the cat was abnormal and dangerous and that the owners knew or should have known of those propensities.
3. Whether the owners were liable in negligence for failing to provide the babysitter a reasonably safe place to work.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the directed verdict and judgment for the defendants.
- The court declined to revise the common-law animal-liability rule to impose strict liability on cat owners and declined to extend the dog-bite statute to cats.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to show the cat had abnormal dangerous propensities or that the owners had actual or constructive knowledge of such propensities.
- The court rejected the “safe place to work” theory because the record did not show the owners had reason to foresee an unusual risk from the household cat.

## Legal Principles

- Under the common-law scienter action for domesticated animals, a plaintiff must prove (1) the particular animal was abnormal and dangerous and (2) the owner or harborer had actual or constructive knowledge of its harmful propensities, typically shown by specific prior acts.
- For wild animals, the possessor is conclusively presumed to know the animal’s dangerousness; the plaintiff need not prove prior knowledge.
- Minn. Stat. § 347.22 imposes strict liability for injuries caused by dogs and does not apply to cats.
- A single prior bite occurring in playful circumstances, without more, may be insufficient to prove a domesticated animal is abnormal and dangerous or to impute knowledge to the owner.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that cat owners are not strictly liable under Minnesota’s dog-bite statute and that, under common-law scienter rules for domesticated animals, liability requires proof that the particular cat was abnormally dangerous and that the owners knew or should have known of that propensity; because the evidence did not meet that standard, judgment for the owners was affirmed.


Clark v. Brings, 284 Minn. 73, 169 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 1969)