Ms. Wood, who was an eighteen year old accomplished equestrian, acquired the horse approximately three months after the accident to train the animal. While harm caused by a cat's brush against a visitor's leg would rarely be expected to result in any damage, a sudden throw from a horse can be expected to cause serious injury. The next misconception with the analysis of both the trial court and the majority is their emphasis on the gentle nature of the horse. For the strict liability theory under Holland, the nature of the beast is not determined by measuring the animal's demeanor, a very inexact science. The very fact of the unpredictability of a dog bite or a horse's buck or jump stemming from a normally gentle species of animal is part of the equation for the legislative choice for the imposition of strict liability.
Strict liability is based on a theory of responsibility which requires no finding of negligence.
The 'fault' of the defendant does not involve blameworthiness or culpability. The animal owner's liability arises solely from ownership and, where permissive custody is granted to another, is non-delegable. By entrusting his animal to another custodian, the owner does not escape responsibility because that custodian is a third person for whom the owner is answerable. Based upon the above expression of the law regarding Article 2321 and my interpretation of the ruling of Boyer, supra.