Opinion ID: 2144591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: exceptions of defendant eastern.

Text: Eastern contends that it was entitled to directed verdicts because (1) there was no evidence that the zebra escaped from Eastern's premises and (2) Eastern neither owned nor kept the zebra nor had any control or opportunity for control over it. There was sufficient evidence admissible against Eastern to warrant a finding that the zebra escaped from its grounds. The evidence recited above showed that the zebra was first seen by McCarthy about half a mile from the Exposition Grounds and was returned there after capture. There was also testimony that several days later a zebra, identified by cuts on the mouth and leg as the same one which entered the Breck building, was displayed on the Exposition Grounds in the Animal Fair, and was advertised by a sign reading: The [z]ebra that toured the Breck plant. It has not been decided in this Commonwealth whether the rule of strict liability for damage caused by wild animals is applicable to a defendant such as Eastern which neither owned the zebra nor, in the ordinary sense of the word, was its keeper. See Cruickshank v. Brockton Agricultural Soc. 260 Mass. 283; Andrews v. Jordan Marsh Co. 283 Mass. 158. Eastern was, however, more than the mere owner of the land upon which the zebra was kept. The evidence shows that one Reynolds, the secretary of Eastern, was in Maine during 1960 to make arrangements with Animal Fair to display the zebra in West Springfield. While on the Exposition Grounds, the animal display was subject to the rules and regulations of Eastern. Under No. 17 of the rules, Eastern had the right to reject any exhibit. Under the licensing agreement, Animal Fair paid Eastern forty per cent of its gross admissions and guaranteed a $500 minimum. As licensor, Eastern remained in possession of the premises and actively conducted the business of the exposition, of which the Animal Fair was a part. Eastern was thus an active participant in exhibiting the zebra and shared in the profits of the owner. We think that Eastern should be held to the same degree of responsibility as the owner and keeper for injuries caused by the zebra. The rule of strict liability in a somewhat similar situation was applied in Stamp v. Eighty-Sixth St. Amusement Co. 95 Misc. (N.Y.) 599. There an amusement company which engaged a lion act to perform on its premises was held liable without fault for damage caused when the lions escaped into the audience. Eastern's motions for directed verdicts were properly denied. Other exceptions have not been argued and will be treated as waived. The entry in each case must be: Exceptions overruled.