What does liability for wild animals depend on?

Liability for wild animals is often rooted in the perception of their inherent danger. The correct answer reflects that liability can arise from a common belief or understanding that a particular type of wild animal poses a risk to people or property. This concept is grounded in the idea of "strict liability," where an owner of a wild animal can be held responsible for injuries caused by that animal, regardless of whether the owner took precautions or had prior knowledge of the animal's propensity for aggression.

This principle serves to protect the public from the potential hazards associated with wild animals, recognizing that some species are inherently more dangerous than domesticated animals. Therefore, if there is a widespread belief that a particular species is dangerous, this perception can significantly influence legal outcomes in liability cases.

Other factors, such as whether an animal has attacked someone before, can indeed contribute to liability, but the foundation often lies in the general societal view of the animal's inherent dangers. Thus, while prior attacks (the third option) can be crucial evidence in establishing liability, it is ultimately the common belief surrounding the animal's potential for harm that primarily dictates liability issues in legal contexts.