The tort for companionship and society is, by law, only applicable to persons and not to animals, regardless of their regard as companion animals or not.
As for the trespass tort, it was found that insufficient evidence was available to prove wrongdoing by the plaintiffs. There was no evidence to suggest how the dogs entered the plaintiffs' property. Evidence of neglect was not sufficient, according to the court.
Analysis
I was somewhat surprised by the court's ruling, since at first sight the negligence was clearly on the part of the dog owners. Furthermore, the fact that the dogs had already killed another neighbor's rabbits should have emphasized the necessity of providing more secure premises for the animals. It could therefore be said that the dog owners had a duty to all their neighbors to keep their dogs securely within a limited environment, where they could not cause damage to the property of others. Letting the animals roam free in such a way as to cause the damage involved was clearly a breach of duty. The likelihood of damage was very high by letting the dogs roam free.
On the other hand, it could also be said that the plaintiffs had a duty to secure their sheep from harm, particularly during their time away from the property. Once again the damage to the rabbits should have been sufficient warning that the dogs could potentially cause harm to the plaintiffs' sheep. It could therefore be argued that they should have taken reasonable measures against this.
While the actual cause of the damage could therefore be said to be the responsibility of the dog owners, the sheep owners could have foreseen the proximate cause of the damage as a result of the dogs...
As in the case of explosive manufacturing and housing wild animals, running a commercial gas station is a commercial activity that is inherently dangerous no matter what precautions the operator takes to prevent accidents that could cause harm to others. Running a gas station is an ultra-hazardous activity whose dangers can be mitigated as much as possible, but the very nature of the activity is impossible to make completely safe.
Negligence Tort Case Review In 1981 Dula McCarty, while staying at the Pheasant Run Lodge, was attacked in her room. The intruder had gained access to her room through a sliding glass door that was lock but had a small safety chain attached. While Mrs. McCarty was out for dinner the intruder, who was never caught, pried open the sliding door, cut through the small chain, entered the room and attacked
Product Liability Tort RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY A tort is a civil wrong, loss or harm inflicted by a person's behavior upon another (LII, 2010). While it is not necessarily an illegal act itself, the law allows the person harmed to recover his loss or receive compensation for the harm. It differs from a crime wherein the person's harmful act affects society in general. A claim of tort may be filed in a
Product Liability Yamaha Motor Group is a multinational corporation that manufactures motorcycles, all-terrain sport vehicles, watercraft products, as well as other product lines (Yamaha). The Rhino 660 and the Rhino 450 are two of the all-terrain sport vehicles they manufacture. In 2007, Yamaha Motor Group had over 100 cases of product liability suits against them where the seat belt restraint systems did not work properly, there were no doors or window
Police civil liability is one of the more complex areas of civil law. Because of their unique position in society, police officers have to be free to engage in behavior that would be tortious if it was committed by people outside of law enforcement. However, that same unique societal position means that those in law enforcement are given opportunities to abuse power that others do not have. The apparent dichotomy
BK Product Liability Product liability is a complicated and expansive sect of law and society. The role of the consumer is very important in the economic processes and political organization of our environment. As a result of this influence, product liability laws are continually evolving and reaching out into new areas of commerce. The purpose of this essay is to examine the product liability law case of Byslma v. Burger King Corporation.
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now