## Facts

- Mosella Schaffer operated a 50-acre farm where she kept exotic animals, including Siberian tigers, through Rare Feline Breeding Center, Inc.
- Scott Irvine, a frequent visitor to the farm over two years under Schaffer’s open invitation, had previously petted tigers through a fence.
- On December 2, 1995, Irvine drank a substantial amount of alcohol while visiting a tenant/friend at Schaffer’s property and stayed after the friend left.
- Irvine later went to the tiger enclosure, placed his fingers inside the fencing, and attempted to pet a male tiger.
- The tiger grabbed Irvine’s arm and pulled it through the fence; Schaffer intervened by banging on the fence until the tiger released him.
- Irvine suffered severe injuries requiring multiple surgeries.
- Irvine sued Schaffer and the breeding center, including a strict-liability claim; defendants asserted incurred risk/assumption of risk and related defenses.
- Irvine sought partial summary judgment on strict liability, arguing such defenses were unavailable as a matter of law; the trial court denied the motion, and Irvine pursued an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana common law imposes strict liability for harm caused by wild animals.
2. Whether defenses such as incurred risk/assumption of risk are available in strict-liability wild-animal cases.
3. Whether material fact disputes (including Irvine’s entrant status and his knowing, unreasonable exposure to risk) precluded summary judgment for Irvine.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of Irvine’s motion for partial summary judgment.
- Indiana common law recognizes strict liability for injuries caused by wild animals and that rule was not eliminated by the Comparative Fault Act.
- Despite strict liability, incurred risk/assumption of risk may be asserted where a plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably encounters the danger posed by a wild animal.
- The record presented genuine issues of material fact regarding Irvine’s status on the property and whether his conduct constituted incurred risk/assumption of risk.

## Legal Principles

- Keepers of wild animals may be strictly liable for harm characteristic of those animals.
- Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act applies to fault-based actions and does not abolish common-law strict liability for wild animals.
- Strict liability is subject to defenses grounded in the plaintiff’s voluntary, knowing, and unreasonable exposure to a known risk (incurred risk/assumption of risk).
- Summary judgment is improper where reasonable factfinders could differ on entrant status or on whether the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably confronted the relevant danger.

## Conclusion

Indiana recognizes strict liability for injuries caused by wild animals, but that liability is not absolute: a plaintiff’s incurred risk/assumption of risk may bar recovery, and factual disputes about the plaintiff’s status and conduct can defeat summary judgment even on a strict-liability theory.


Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Ctr., Inc., 685 N.E.2d 120 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)