Instruction No. 13.2
STRICT LIABILITY- WILD ANIMALS

You are instructed that a [describe kind of animal] is a wild animal. An owner [or a person] who keeps a wild animal does so at [his/her] own risk and is responsible for all damages to property and injuries to persons that are directly caused by the animal, even though [he/she] exercised the utmost care to keep it from causing harm.

This Instruction should be used with the appropriate instructions for damages. See Instruction Nos. 4.1, 4.2. In addition, where causation is in issue, the appropriate instructions on causation should be given, but they should be modified by replacing references to negligence with references to the defendant's animal. See Instruction Nos. 9.6-9.8.

This Instruction may need to be modified to cover various situations, such as where a wild animal escapes and returns to its natural habitat, or the defendant raises an affirmative defense of contributory negligence or assumption of risk. See generally Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 507, 508, and 515 (1965).

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 506(a) (1965) defines a wild animal as "an animal that is not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept." Strict liability was imposed on owners of bears in City of Mangum v. Brownlee, 181 Okla. 515, 75 P.2d 174 (1938); and City of Tonkawa v. Danielson, 166 Okla. 241, 27 P.2d 348 (1933). Contributory negligence was recognized as a defense in the City of Tonkawa case.

If a wild animal has been tamed, then the owner's liability for injuries that the animal causes may be governed by 4 O.S. 1991 § 42.1 [4-42.1], and if that is what the court concludes, it should give Instruction No. 13.4 instead of this Instruction. See Whitfield v. Stewart, 577 P.2d 1295, 1299 (Okla. 1978) ("We hold . . . that one who chooses to harbor a monkey on his premises is responsible for the acts of the animal to the same extent as provided in 4 O.S. 1971 § 42.1 [4-42.1], supra, in the case of owners of dogs.").