Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Ctr.

685 N.E.2d 120 (1997)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...

Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Ctr.

Indiana Court of Appeals

685 N.E.2d 120 (1997)

Facts

Mosella Schaffer (defendant) lived on a 50-acre farm where she raised and maintained exotic animals, including zebras, kangaroos, camels, and Siberian tigers. Scott Bullington rented a room in the garage area from Schaffer. Bullington was friends with Scott Irvine (plaintiff) and invited him over to see the animals. Schaffer also extended Irvine an open invitation to visit, and Irvine came by several dozen times over two years. Irvine and other visitors would occasionally pet the tigers through a fence while on the property. During one visit with Bullington, Irvine consumed a substantial amount of alcohol, and Bullington invited Irvine to sleep on his couch. Bullington left to attend a Christmas party, and Irvine decided to see the animals before he went to sleep. Irvine went to the tigers and put a couple of his fingers through the fence to pet one. Another tiger made some noise, and, while Irvine was looking away, the tiger he was petting pulled his arm through the fence. Schaffer heard Irvine shouting and came out to investigate. Schaffer banged on the fence and freed Irvine. Irvine was seriously injured and underwent six surgeries during a 13-day hospital stay. Irvine will likely need additional surgeries as well. Irvine sued Schaffer, alleging negligence, strict liability, and nuisance. Schaffer raised the defenses of incurred risk and assumption of risk. Irvine moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that these defenses are not available in a strict-liability animal case. The trial court mostly denied the motion, and Irvine appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Chezem, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 519,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership