The Goose is Loose: Michigan Court of Appeals Revives Premises Liability Suit and Provides a Pathway to Liability in Goose Attack Case

Negligence claims arising out of injuries from animals run into the common law doctrines of ferae naturae and domitae naturae. These doctrines may bar a plaintiff’s ability to seek relief. The ferae naturae doctrine is a bar to liability for injuries suffered from wild animals where the defendant has not exercised dominion, control or possession over the animal. On the other hand, domitae naturae cases involving domesticated animals (most common being dog-bite cases in the context of premises liability) require a plaintiff to prove that “(a) the dog is a condition on the land and (b) the defendant had knowledge of the dog’s dangerous tendencies.” Tripp v Baker, 346 Mich App 257, 268-69 (2023). In Leiendecker, the Court of Appeals applied principles of domitae naturae doctrine to revive a premises liability claim in a ferae naturae case.

However, does Judge Boonstra’s strong dissenting opinion, which recognized the distinctions between the two common law doctrines, indicate an appeal to the Supreme Court to clarify this decision? Only time will tell. Otherwise, this published decision paves a path for premises liability claims to proceed to discovery where persons are injured by wild animals on another’s land where it is alleged that: (1) the wild animal constitutes a “dangerous condition” and (2) the defendant knew or should have known about.