Exotic Animal Attacks in Georgia: Ownership and Liability

Published Read 7 min read

On this page

A person attacked by an exotic animal in Georgia relies on a rule set by a 1935 decision about a baboon. That year a baboon escaped from a private zoo in DeKalb County and was found in a motorist’s parked automobile. It advanced on the motorist “in a menacing manner,” the motorist fell while fleeing, and a jury awarded $10,000, a verdict the Court of Appeals of Georgia left standing. That decision, Candler v. Smith, 50 Ga. App. 667 (1935), states a rule that separates wild animals from domestic ones: for an animal wild by nature, the keeper’s knowledge of danger is presumed. Georgia’s wild animal licensing statutes add a list of inherently dangerous animals, an insurance requirement, and conditions on keeping them.

The Statute and the Two Theories

OCGA 51-2-7 exposes the owner or keeper of a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind to liability when, through careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, it injures someone who did not provoke it. The statute applies to an animal of any kind, which is why it can reach a wild animal as well as a dog. Candler quoted the 1933 Code version of the same provision, which said the keeper “shall be liable” rather than “may be liable,” and it read the provision as offering two theories: “one where he voluntarily permits the animal to roam at large, and the other where he is negligent in the manner used to prevent the animal escaping and going at large.” The plaintiff there relied on the second.

Wild Animals and Presumed Knowledge

Candler separated two classes of animal. For a wild animal, the court stated: “When a person is injured by an attack of an animal ferae naturae, the negligence of the owner or keeper thereof is presumed, because of the dangerous and ferocious propensities of a wild beast, such as a lion, tiger, leopard, bear, ape, baboon, and such like wild beasts, and the law recognizes that safety lies only in keeping such animals perfectly secure.” The court added that the keeper “is required to exercise that degree of care in regard to them which will absolutely prevent the occurrence of an injury to others,” provided that the injury is not brought about by the negligence of the person injured, and that it “is not in itself unlawful for a person to keep wild beasts.”

On knowledge, the court wrote that the owner or keeper of a vicious animal must have knowledge of its vicious nature, but that “this knowledge is presumed to exist when the animal involved belongs to a certain class of animals ferae naturae, such as lions, tigers, bears, wolves, baboons, apes and monkeys, etc.,” while for domesticated animals such as “cows, swine, dogs, horses, cats, and the like, the vicious nature of the particular animal must have been known by the owner or keeper thereof prior to the wrongful act of the animal.” Applied to the baboon, the rule meant the plaintiff did not have to prove carelessness: “Proof that a wild beast was not so restrained as to avoid the injury to the plaintiff is tantamount to proof of negligence in its keeping,” and “[t]he owner or keeper of an animal ferae naturae is bound to keep the animal secure at his peril.” A trial court instruction that put a heavier burden on the plaintiff was wrong but favored the defendant, so it did not require a new trial. The plaintiff had also offered evidence that the defendant kept the animal in a cage near an elk that tore a hole in it, and that the baboon had bitten others earlier.

The court noted that some jurisdictions treat animals capable of substantial domestication differently, and it held that doctrine inapplicable on the pleadings because there was “no suggestion” that the baboon “had ever been trained or become domesticated to any extent.” Candler was decided by a divided court, with one judge dissenting on the ground that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested charges on causation of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Georgia’s Wild Animal Licensing Statutes

OCGA 27-5-4(a) makes it “unlawful for any person to import, transport, transfer, sell, purchase, or possess any wild animal listed in Code Section 27-5-5 or specified by the board by regulation without first obtaining a wild animal license from the department” or a wild animal permit. Licenses “will be issued only to persons engaged in the wholesale or retail wild animal business or persons exhibiting wild animals to the public,” and permits are issued only for scientific or educational purposes, for a person with a qualifying permanent disability who needs a trained capuchin monkey, and for grass carp in a pond (OCGA 27-5-4(b)). The statute states the purpose of the board’s authority in OCGA 27-5-2(a), which reaches possession that “poses a possibility of” harm to wildlife or “[d]anger to the physical safety of human beings.”

OCGA 27-5-5(a) lists the animals “considered to be inherently dangerous to human beings.” The list includes kangaroos and wallabies; gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, macaques, and baboons; wolves and jackals; bears; hyenas; lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, snow leopards, cheetahs, and cougars; elephants; rhinoceroses; hippopotamuses; crocodiles, alligators, and caimans; venomous snakes; Gila monsters and beaded lizards; and piranhas. The snakes named in OCGA 27-5-5 are venomous families; large constricting snakes do not appear in its text. Subsection (b) lists further animals for which a license or permit is required, and the board may supplement the list (OCGA 27-5-2(b)).

Liability insurance is a condition of licensing for the animals in subsection (a). Before a license or permit issues for an inherently dangerous animal, an applicant other than a governmental agency or university research facility must provide proof of insurance that covers “claims for injury or damage to persons or property in an amount equal to $40,000.00 for each inherently dangerous animal up to a maximum of $500,000.00” (OCGA 27-5-4(f)). For example, imagine a licensee that keeps three inherently dangerous animals: the required coverage is $120,000, and thirteen animals would compute to $520,000 and so reach the $500,000 maximum. The figure is a condition of the license.

A license also carries other conditions. Applicants for mammal licenses “must obtain a license from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture or provide written documentation that the applicant is exempt,” must show that the facilities are not prohibited by county or municipal ordinances, and must keep facilities “completely separated from a residence” (OCGA 27-5-4(k)(2), (3), (5)). A license for public exhibition is conditioned on adequate facilities “for the humane handling, care, and confinement of wild animals and ensuring public safety,” and on public opening hours (OCGA 27-5-4(e)).

Exhibitors, Premises, and Unlicensed Keepers

A facility that admits visitors owes them ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe (OCGA 51-3-1). A licensed exhibitor is therefore within the licensing statutes, the keeper rule of Candler, and the premises statute at once.

The Provocation Defense

OCGA 51-2-7 reaches injury to a person who did not provoke it. Candler likewise states that the keeper’s duty holds “provided of course that the injury is not brought about by the negligence of the person injured.”

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a licensee sell a listed animal to someone without a license?
No. It is unlawful to sell, transfer, deliver, or surrender a listed wild animal to a person who does not hold a license or permit for it, unless that person is an exempt regulated carrier (OCGA 27-5-4(c), (d)).

Does a license cover an animal’s offspring?
A license or permit is valid only for the species and numbers of animals it lists; a license to hold a female covers the female’s progeny only while they are physically dependent on the mother or until they are two months old, whichever is longer (OCGA 27-5-4(g)).

Must a licensee keep records of transfers?
Yes. A licensee must record the date, place, manner, and the names and addresses of everyone involved within 24 hours after importing, buying, transporting, selling, or transferring a wild animal, and keep those records for 12 months (OCGA 27-5-4(j)).

Where may a licensed animal be kept?
Only in facilities approved by the department as described in OCGA 27-5-6; holding a wild animal in unapproved facilities is unlawful for a licensee (OCGA 27-5-4(h)).

  • OCGA 51-2-7; OCGA 51-3-1
  • OCGA 27-5-2, 27-5-4(a) through (k), 27-5-5
  • Candler v. Smith, 50 Ga. App. 667 (1935)

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about liability for exotic animal attacks under Georgia law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The rule for wild animals comes from a 1935 decision, and whether it applies to a particular animal depends on the facts. Anyone injured by an exotic animal should consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly about the particular situation.

Related posts:

  1. Severe Burn Injury Claims in Georgia: Pursuing Compensation for Disfiguring Trauma For a person with a severe burn, a Georgia claim starts from how medicine measures the injury: how deep the burn goes and how much of the body it covers.......
  2. Construction Vehicle Accidents: Dump Trucks and Heavy Equipment A driver or passenger hurt in a collision with a dump truck or other construction vehicle meets questions an ordinary collision does not raise: what the truck was carrying and......
  3. Food Truck Accidents: Mobile Vendor Liability A person hurt by a food truck may have been struck on the road while the truck was moving or injured at the service window while it was parked and......
  4. Exercise Equipment Injuries in Georgia: Treadmill and Weight Machine Defects Exercise equipment raises questions that other products may not: the machine may not be in use when someone is hurt, its risks may be visible to anyone who looks, and......
  5. Airbnb and Vacation Rental Injury Claims in Georgia A guest hurt at a Georgia short-term rental can look to the host who owns or runs the property, to the platform that took the booking, and to the insurance......
  6. Highway Work Zone Accidents in Georgia A crash in a Georgia highway work zone can involve the driver who caused it, the contractor doing the work, and the government that owns the road, and each answers......
  7. Hospital Visitor Injury Claims in Georgia A visitor hurt in a hospital corridor, lobby, or parking area is not the patient, and Georgia law treats the visitor's claim as a premises claim rather than a claim......
  8. Emergency Room Negligence in Georgia: When Rushed Care Causes Harm A patient hurt by care in a Georgia hospital emergency department faces a heavier burden than the ordinary medical malpractice plaintiff. Under OCGA 51-1-29.5, a physician or health care provider......
  9. Airport Shuttle Accidents: Hotel and Transit Van Claims The claim of a passenger hurt in an airport shuttle or a hotel van depends on the duty Georgia law places on a carrier of passengers and on who operated......
  10. Bridge and Overpass Failure Claims in Georgia When a Georgia bridge or overpass fails, the injured person may have claims against the public body that owns it and against the firms that designed or built it, and......
  11. Economic vs. Non-Economic Damages in Georgia Personal Injury Cases Georgia sorts the money in an injury claim with two pairs of labels that come from different statutes. General and special damages are distinguished in OCGA 51-12-2; economic and noneconomic......
  12. Future Medical Expenses in Georgia: Proving Lifetime Care Costs After a serious injury, the damages claim can include care that has not been provided yet. Georgia law answers the proof questions for that care in several statutes. The future......
  13. Franchisor Liability for Franchisee Negligence in Georgia A franchised business carries a national name, but the company behind the counter can be a separate local operator that licenses the brand. Whether a person hurt there can reach......
  14. Garbage Truck Accidents: Municipal Liability Issues When a garbage truck backs into a car or strikes someone on the street, who operated the truck decides which statutes apply. A collection truck run by a city or......
  15. Federal Tort Claims Act: Suing the U.S. Government in Georgia A person hurt by a federal employee in Georgia cannot begin with a lawsuit. Congress conditioned the right to sue the United States on a claim presented first to the......
  16. Bank and ATM Assault Claims in Georgia An assault or robbery at a bank branch or an automated teller machine is, for a cause of action arising on or after April 21, 2025, a negligent security claim......

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *