top of page

Bad Bunny, Bad Bunnies, and the Law of Wild Animals in Torts

  • Writer: Tommy Sangchompuphen
    Tommy Sangchompuphen
  • 14 hours ago
  • 3 min read

If you’re not a football person (or a pop-music person), here’s the quick context:


  • The Super Bowl is the NFL’s championship game (and one of the most-watched events in the U.S.)


  • At halftime, the league puts on a massive halftime show with a headline performer.


  • This year’s headliner is six-time GRAMMY-award winner Bad Bunny, a globally popular artist whose hits include “DÁKITI,” “Tití Me Preguntó,” “Me Porto Bonito,” and “Ojitos Lindos.”)


So why am I writing about this on a bar prep blog?


Because I love hooks and tie-ins, and I look for every opportunity to turn something into a teaching (and learning) moment.


So, this weekend, when you hear "Bad Bunny," think about bad bunnies (rabbits). 



And when an animal shows up in a Torts fact pattern, my brain immediately goes to the same place I want your brain to go on the bar exam: Is this a wild animal strict-liability issue, a domestic animal with a “known dangerous propensity” issue, or neither?


When a bar exam question throws in an animal that injures a person in a Torts question, the examiners are rarely doing it for fun. They’re testing whether you know when strict liability applies, and whether you can spot the difference between:


  • Wild animals (strict liability almost automatically), and


  • Domestic animals (strict liability only in a specific situation)


Bad Bunny makes this easy to remember: A bunny isn’t “wild” just because it’s “Bad.”


But strict liability might still show up if the bunny has a known dangerous tendency.


The Bar Exam’s Animal Checklist


On the bar exam, strict liability is the “no-fault” concept: The defendant can be liable even if they used reasonable care.


Animal strict liability usually turns on one of two tracks.


Track 1: Wild animals

A wild animal is one that isn't normally domesticated (even if someone tries to keep it as a pet).


If you keep a wild animal, you’re generally strictly liable for harm the animal causes (because wild animals are inherently risky).


Translation: “I kept it in a strong cage,” “I used warning signs,” or “I did my best” usually won’t save you on strict liability when it comes to wild animals.


Track 2: Domestic animals (the “known proclivities” rule)

A domestic animal is one we commonly think of as a household or farm animal, like dogs, cats, horses, cattle, etc.


With domestic animals, you don’t automatically get strict liability.


Instead, strict liability kicks in only if the owner knew (or should have known) that this particular animal had a dangerous propensity abnormal to its species.


That’s the phrase to tattoo on your brain for the exam: “Dangerous propensity abnormal to the species.”


Translation: It isn't enough that the animal could bite. Many animals could bite. The issue is whether this animal is known to be unusually dangerous.


So, Are Bad Bunnies Wild Animals?


Probably not.


A bunny is typically treated like a domesticated animal in everyday life. So the mere fact that the name includes “Bad” doesn’t transform it into a wild animal issue.


But here’s the bar exam move. If the fact pattern says:


  • “The rabbit had bitten three people before,” or


  • “The owner warned guests not to pet it because it bites,” or


  • “The owner bragged that it’s ‘mean’ and likes to lunge at hands,”


then the question is likely screaming "dangerous propensity abnormal to the species." And that’s how you get strict liability for a domestic animal.


So, when you see an animal injury fact pattern in a Torts question, don’t default to negligence.


Run this quick, bar-friendly sequence:


Ask: Is the animal wild or domestic?


  • If the animal is wild, then you're typically in strict liability territory for harm caused by the animal (and reasonable care usually won’t matter).


  • If the animal is domestic, then ask whether there are prior bites, warnings, bragging, etc. showing the owner knew of a dangerous propensity abnormal to the species. If so, then apply strict liability.


This weekend, if you catch the halftime show (or even just hear the name), let “Bad Bunny” be your opportunity to review wild animals and strict liability.

lastest posts

categories

archives

© 2025 by Tommy Sangchompuphen. 

The content on this blog reflects my personal views and experiences and do not represent the views or opinions of any other individual, organization, or institution. It is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information contained in this blog without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.

bottom of page