Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Center, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Plaintiff sued for injuries from a tiger attack. The court affirmed denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment, holding that strict liability applies to wild animal cases in Indiana, but defenses like incurred risk are available.
Legal Significance: This case established Indiana’s adoption of the Restatement (Second) of Torts approach to strict liability for harm caused by wild animals, including the recognition of defenses such as incurred risk and the relevance of the plaintiff’s status.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Mosella Schaffer maintained exotic animals, including Siberian tigers, on her farm. Scott Irvine, a friend of Schaffer’s tenant, Bullington, frequently visited the farm over two years with Schaffer’s open invitation and occasionally petted the tigers through a fence. On December 2, 1995, after drinking alcohol and with Bullington having left, Irvine, who had permission to stay overnight, decided to visit the tigers. He accessed the tiger enclosure area by passing through Schaffer’s garage, utility room, and sun room. Irvine then put his fingers through the wire caging to pet a male tiger. When a female tiger caused a commotion, Irvine looked away, and the male tiger pulled his arm through the fence, causing severe injuries. Irvine was aware of a prior incident where the same tiger had grabbed another person’s thumb and had been told during volunteer work at a zoo not to have contact with tigers. Irvine sued Schaffer alleging, inter alia, strict liability. The trial court denied Irvine’s motion for partial summary judgment on the strict liability count.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Indiana common law impose strict liability for harm caused by wild animals, and if so, are defenses such as incurred risk available to the defendant?
Yes, Indiana common law imposes strict liability for harm caused by wild Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does Indiana common law impose strict liability for harm caused by wild animals, and if so, are defenses such as incurred risk available to the defendant?
Conclusion
This case is significant for formally adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori
Legal Rule
Indiana common law recognizes strict liability for harm caused by wild animals. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in r
Legal Analysis
The court first established that Indiana common law recognized the rule of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veni
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Indiana formally adopts strict liability for injuries caused by wild animals,