What type of liability would apply to a homeowner with a pet tiger if a neighbor's child is injured after managing to open the cage?

Absolute liability applies in this situation because it holds individuals or entities responsible for harm caused by certain inherently dangerous activities, regardless of negligence or fault. In the case of owning a pet tiger, the presence of a wild animal poses a significant risk to others in the vicinity. This type of liability is designed to ensure that individuals who engage in high-risk activities or own dangerous animals are responsible for any resulting injuries, even if they took precautions to prevent such incidents.

For instance, regardless of how secure the cage was or if the owner was attentive, the fact that a potentially dangerous animal is involved means that the owner can still be held liable for any injuries that occur. This concept is rooted in public safety, emphasizing that certain risks cannot be fully controlled, and therefore, the owner must be held accountable for any consequences that arise from their ownership of such a dangerous creature.

In contrast, negligent liability typically requires proof that the owner failed to take reasonable care, which isn't necessary for absolute liability. Vicarious liability pertains to responsibility for actions taken by others, often within an employment context, and general liability encompasses a broader range of claims but doesn’t specifically address the unique risks associated with owning dangerous animals.