What is the outcome if a landowner takes no precautions against known wild animals?

The correct outcome is that the landowner's liability is determined by the level of negligence. In tort law, particularly in cases involving wild animals, the liability of a landowner isn’t absolute. Instead, it hinges on whether the landowner acted with reasonable care given the circumstances.

If a landowner is aware of a wild animal on their property, they have a duty to take appropriate precautions to prevent injuries that may arise from that animal. This could include fencing the area, providing warnings, or taking other safety measures. If the landowner fails to take reasonable steps and a person is harmed as a result, the landowner may be found negligent.

The determination of liability will involve looking at the specific actions or inactions of the landowner and assessing whether those actions fell below the standard of care expected in similar situations. Therefore, if the landowner does take some precautions but they are deemed inadequate, liability will be attributable based on their level of negligence, and not a simple determination of always being liable or free from liability due to factors like insurance or the age of the victim.

The understanding of negligence is crucial here; it ensures that each case is considered based on its facts, rather than applying blanket rules.