Court Refuses To Impose Liability For Gender-Based Dangerousness of Ram.

 The parties are friends and neighbors and are both farmers.  The plaintiff has raised various types of livestock, but the summer of 2012 was his first time raising sheep.  The defendant had bred sheep for over 30 years.  On occasion, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to keep livestock on the plaintiff's property.  In the summer of 2012, the parties went together to a livestock yard where the defendant bought a lamb ram to replace his existing ram.  The ram showed no vicious tendencies.  After ewes had been put in the pasture with the ram, the plaintiff was butted repeatedly by the ram as he attempted to turn on sprinklers in the pasture.  At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was 82 years old.  He suffered a concussion, five broken ribs, a broken sternum and a broken shoulder.  The plaintiff was hospitalized for 16 days.  The plaintiff sued based solely on a theory of gender based strict liability irrespective of whether or not the defendant knew the ram was abnormally dangerous.  The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant.  On appeal, the court affirmed.  The appellate court noted that the standard of care under state (WA) law is ordinary care if the animal is not inclined to commit mischief, unless it is shown that the animal's owner knew that the animal had vicious tendencies.  In that event, strict liability is the rule.  The court noted that this approach was consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts Secs. 509 and 518.  Under Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 509 comment e, rams have not historically been regarded as being inherently dangerous animals, but comment 23 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts propose a possible gender-or-breed-based modification of the general rule treating domestic animals as not excessively dangerous.  The court, however, referenced the policy reasons for not holding owners of male domestic livestock to a strict liability standard.  In addition, the court noted that the legislature could modify the law and had already done so with respect to dogs in certain situations.  Rhodes v. MacHugh, No. 32509-1-III, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 2687 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2015).