an unusual situation—meaning that it is rare for livestock to be grazed at night and for property to be guarded at night. What is rare carries no legal ruling.

If someone asks: What is the basic principle regarding damage caused by an animal, so that we may know what constitutes an exception to that principle? Is the default that liability is incurred, or not?

We say: The basic principle regarding damage caused by an animal is that there is no liability. The evidence is the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “The injury caused by an untended animal entails no liability.” (1) This is unless there is wrongdoing or negligence on the part of its owner. If there is wrongdoing or negligence, he is held accountable in accordance with what that wrongdoing and negligence entail.

For example, it is unlawful to keep a vicious dog, as mentioned earlier. Thus, if it causes damage outside its owner’s home, its owner is liable. As for a dog that is not vicious, if it causes damage outside its owner’s home, there is no liability, based on the rule that the basic principle regarding damage caused by an animal is the absence of liability.

If it is under the control of a rider, a leader, or a driver, he is liable for the damage it causes with its front, but not with its rear.

His statement, “If it is”: the pronoun refers to the animal.

His statement, “under the control of a rider,” means that the rider is able to control it. This is why people say of something beyond their ability: “It is not in my hands.”

His statement, “under the control of a rider”: if the animal is not unruly, the rider is able to control it. Thus, if it causes damage—as will be mentioned—he is liable, because he is able to control it.

But if it breaks loose from him, bolts away, and he is unable to control it, then he bears no liability. This is understood from his statement, “under his control.”