In the given example, why is Matt held liable for the snake bite incident?

Matt is held liable for the snake bite incident primarily because his activity involves owning dangerous animals. This principle is rooted in the legal concept of strict liability, which applies to owners of inherently dangerous animals. In such cases, the law holds the owner responsible for any harm caused by the animal, regardless of the owner's negligence or intent. Since a snake can be classified as a dangerous animal, Matt’s ownership of the snake establishes a direct link to his liability for the bite that occurred.

This means that even if Matt took some precautions or was not negligent in other aspects, the fact that he owns a dangerous animal creates a responsibility for the damages caused when that animal acts in a way that can be deemed harmful. In this scenario, the specifics of how Matt managed his property or the actions of Luke do not diminish Matt's liability arising from his ownership of the snake.