## Facts

- Scott Isaacs (age two years and seven months) visited “Monkeytown, U.S.A.,” operated by Lester M. Powell and Arlyss R. Powell.
- Scott’s father purchased admission and food, which visitors were encouraged to buy to feed the animals.
- While Scott was feeding a chimpanzee named “Valerie,” the chimpanzee grabbed Scott’s arm and caused serious injury.
- The parties disputed how the injury occurred: the defendants claimed the father lifted Scott over adequate barriers into reach; the plaintiffs claimed the barriers and protective measures were inadequate.
- The plaintiffs did not pursue a negligence theory; they sought recovery solely under strict liability applicable to wild animals (*ferae naturae*).

## Issues

1. Whether the keeper of a wild animal in Florida is strictly liable for injuries caused by the animal regardless of negligence, or whether liability requires proof of fault.
2. Whether it was error to instruct the jury to decide liability based on the defendants’ negligence versus the father’s negligence when the claim was pleaded solely as strict liability.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for the defendants and remanded.
- The court adopted the general rule that the owner or keeper of a wild animal is liable for harm caused by the animal without requiring proof of negligence.
- The trial court erred by submitting the case under negligence-based instructions that conditioned liability on fault.

## Legal Principles

- A person who keeps an animal *ferae naturae* is subject to strict liability for injuries caused by the animal’s dangerous propensities typical of its class, without regard to the keeper’s due care.
- Strict liability for wild animals is not absolute insurance; defenses may apply, including assumption of risk and causation cutoffs where a third party’s independent fault is the sole cause of the harm.
- When a case is tried on an incorrect liability standard, a verdict based on that standard cannot stand and the matter must be retried or reconsidered under the correct rule.

## Conclusion

The court held, as a matter of Florida law, that keepers of wild animals are strictly liable for injuries caused by such animals, and it reversed because the jury was improperly instructed to decide the case on negligence rather than strict liability.


Isaacs v. Powell, 267 So. 2d 864 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1972)