## Facts

- Jay H. Rhodes and Rodney MacHugh were longtime friends and neighbors who farmed livestock in Washington.
- Because MacHugh’s land was prone to flooding, Rhodes allowed MacHugh to keep sheep on Rhodes’s property.
- In summer 2012, MacHugh bought a young ram to replace an older one and kept it on Rhodes’s property.
- For about a month, the ram showed no vicious tendencies; Rhodes testified it had been friendly before breeding season.
- After ewes were placed in the pasture with the ram, Rhodes entered the yard to turn on sprinklers; the ram attacked him repeatedly, knocked him down, and caused severe injuries.
- Rhodes did not allege the ram had previously displayed abnormal viciousness and did not assert negligence; he sought strict liability based on the claimed inherent dangerousness of rams as male sheep.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington should impose strict liability on an owner of a domestic animal based solely on gender-based dangerousness (e.g., a ram), without proof the particular animal had abnormal dangerous propensities known or knowable to the owner.
2. Whether, under Washington law, strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal requires the owner’s knowledge (actual or constructive) of dangerous propensities abnormal to the animal’s class.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing Rhodes’s complaint.
- The court declined to expand Washington strict-liability doctrine to impose gender-based strict liability for domestic animals such as rams.
- Because Rhodes neither pleaded negligence nor claimed the ram had abnormal dangerous propensities known or knowable to MacHugh, existing Washington law provided no basis for strict liability.

## Legal Principles

- For domestic animals, Washington imposes strict liability only when the animal has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class and the owner knows or has reason to know of those propensities.
- Traits that are more dangerous but considered normal for a species or gender are generally addressed through negligence (a duty of reasonable care commensurate with the animal’s character), not strict liability.
- A judicial shift to broader strict liability based on ordinary, gender-linked traits in livestock is a policy choice the court treated as more suitable for legislative action than common-law expansion.

## Conclusion

The court held that Washington law does not recognize strict liability for injuries caused by a ram merely because rams may be more aggressive than other sheep; strict liability remains limited to cases involving abnormal dangerous propensities of which the owner had actual or constructive knowledge, with other risks governed by negligence principles.


Rhodes v. MacHugh, 191 Wash. App. 104, 361 P.3d 260 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015)