The 'one free bite' rule applies to

• A. Negligence per se
• B. Strict liability for owners of animals that are normally harmless
• C. Res ipsa loquitur
• D. Assumption of risk

Answer: (B)

Think about liability for animal bites. The one free bite rule specifically deals with animals that are normally harmless. The idea is that the owner isn’t automatically liable for the first bite, but once the animal has shown a propensity to bite, the owner becomes strictly liable for subsequent bites. That framing fits as strict liability for owners of animals that are normally harmless, because the risk associated with the bite is tied to the animal’s established dangerous propensity, not to the owner’s negligence in a single moment. The other concepts don’t match this situation: negligence per se would require a statute violation; res ipsa loquitur would require the accident to strongly indicate negligence; assumption of risk requires the plaintiff to knowingly accept the risk. For an initial bite by a normally harmless animal, liability is not automatic, but after the bite demonstrates danger, the owner is strictly liable for further harm.