## Facts

- Paul Marshall and John C. Ranne owned neighboring farms in Van Zandt County, Texas.
- Ranne owned a boar that repeatedly escaped and was seen on Marshall’s property for weeks before the incident.
- Marshall testified the boar had previously charged him many times, confined him in an outhouse, and attacked his wife on several occasions.
- On the day of the injury, Marshall saw the boar at a distance, went inside to change clothes, then exited and looked for the boar but did not see it.
- As Marshall walked toward his pickup truck near the outhouse, the boar charged from behind and severely bit Marshall’s hand.
- Marshall had guns available and could have shot the boar but did not, believing it was not the neighborly thing to do.
- Marshall notified Ranne by leaving a note stating that Ranne’s boar “has gone bad.”

## Issues

1. Whether contributory negligence is a defense to strict liability for injuries caused by a domestic animal with known vicious propensities.
2. Whether Marshall voluntarily assumed the risk of injury where avoiding the boar would have required foregoing ordinary use of his home and property or taking other questionable measures.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgments for Ranne and rendered judgment for Marshall.
- Contributory negligence was held not to bar recovery in a strict-liability claim based on a domestic animal’s known dangerous propensities.
- Marshall did not voluntarily assume the risk as a matter of law because Ranne’s failure to control the boar left Marshall without a reasonable alternative consistent with ordinary use of his property.

## Legal Principles

- An owner is strictly liable for harm caused by a domestic animal if the animal has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class and the owner knew or should have known of those propensities.
- In such strict-liability animal cases, contributory negligence is not a defense.
- Assumption of risk remains a possible defense to strict liability, but only if the plaintiff’s acceptance of the risk is voluntary.
- Acceptance of risk is not voluntary when the defendant’s wrongful conduct leaves the plaintiff no reasonable alternative to encountering the danger in order to exercise lawful rights (such as leaving the home and using one’s property).

## Conclusion

The court imposed strict liability on the owner of a known vicious domestic animal, rejected contributory negligence as a defense, and held that assumption of risk requires a truly voluntary choice, which is absent when the plaintiff lacks a reasonable alternative to ordinary use of home and property.


Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974)