Analysis of Strict Liability Rule in Dog Bite Cases

On 05/06/17, at 12:28pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 3162 E 5th Ave, on a dog on dog or cat attack no known owner of attack dog. I arrived at the location and met with the caller Carrie Samander and her boyfriend complainant Edward Oryan. I asked what happened, Mr. Oryan stated that he was walking his dog (grey/white Pit Bull) down the alley when the neighbor’s dog (white/brown Pit Bull) down the street (3189 E. 6th Ave) got loose and attacked his dog. Mr. Oryan dog protected him by getting in front of him and defending him against the pit bull. An unknown male Hispanic juvenile came out and tried to retrieve the white/brown pit bull. Mr. Oryan took his dog home and Ms. Samander than contacted the Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC). Ms. Samander stated that this is the second instance in the last few months that this white/brown pit bull got loose and attack her dog. Ms. Samander stated the injuries to her dog are minor but, that she will still be taking her dog to his injuries looked at. Ms. Samander dog had visible injuries to its ear, to the right side of its head and to the middle section of his back. I took

Having established the purpose of strict liability, it is evident as to why it can be seen as a controversial area in law making and this essay will outline some of the arguments for and against it that are commonly put forward on the effective enforcement of the law and the maintenance of standards.

Holding: Kelbel's conflicting explanations for Kailyn's injuries did not coincide with testimonies given my medical examiners, Lindsey, Olster, and a neighbor, so the court holds that evidence presented is sufficient for the jury to reach a verdict. The court also concludes

The appeals court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant’s behavior was willful and wanton conduct.

Plaintiff, Dobbie Brown, a minor child, has brought a cause of action with his parents, Michael and Tina Brown against our client, defendant, Lawrence Vincent Smith for statutory liability under Florida’s dog bite statute. On October 31, 2009, around 9:30 p.m., Plaintiff, along with seven other children came running up to our client’s property to trick or treat. Plaintiff ran to the glass window where owner’s dog Beast was. Plaintiff began to pound on the window yelling, “Trick or Treat!!” while Beast barked, ran back and forth and jumped around. Our client answered the door a few minutes after he went to retrieve his hot biscuits from the oven. When our client answered the door, the kids were screaming “Trick or Treat” at the top of their lungs. Plaintiff was dressed up in a cat costume. When our client opened the door, and handed Plaintiff a biscuit, Beast sprang up from the door and bit off Plaintiff’s finger. Our client quickly restrained Beast, wrapped up Plaintiff’s hand along with the severed finger and took Plaintiff to the hospital where doctors were able to successfully reattach the severed finger. Our client had purchased Beast about eight months before the incident. The Beast is an eight to ten pound Yorkie who has bitten our client’s niece on a prior occasion, although the bite was minor. The Beast has been around children in

Murder and abuse cases never fail to startle society. Moral codes are flouted with unmatched rigorousness by these indubitable egregious crimes. Sufferers in these cases are often people. Nonetheless, these callous obscenities should not be seen as less important when animals are the victims. Animals undergo horrendous abuse due to barbaric individuals, greed, and unnecessary lab testing.

On 09/11/16 at 5:57pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 841 Crevis Lane on a possible nuisance dog; dog still at large, threat to safety. I arrived at the location and spoke to complainant John Haywood. Mr. Haywood stated that he was going to his vehicle to put his daughter car set in when the neighbor’s dog came from behind him and started growling and barking at him. Mr. Haywood ran into the garage to get away. He contacted Franklin County Animal Care and Control due to the dog being previously designated dangerous. Mr. Haywood recorded the dog loose near his vehicle. I advised Mr. Haywood if he know if the dog was still loose, Mr. Haywood was unsure. I advised him I will need to check with the dog owners to make sure the dog has return home and I will return to talk to him.

P alleges temporary loss of his dog and false arrest. P alleges he was holding his dog on a leash on the street when MOS grabbed and threw him to the ground causing P to let go of the leash. P alleges that the dog lunged towards defendant MOS and MOS shot at the dog. P alleges that he was cuffed and taken to the precinct and defendant MOS took his dog to an animal dog as a lost dog. P alleges that he had to pay $280 to retrieve his dog back. P alleges that MOS did not allow his tied his dog up. P alleges that the criminal charges were, later, dismissed. No other information is known about the case. It is unclear what role, if any, Defendant MOS Jeffrey Sisco, played in this

On 05/08/18, at approximately 10:56am, I Deputy Warden N. Christian with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) was dispatched to 4514 Starrett Court on a dangerous or vicious dog investigation (dog owner owner's address). I arrived on scene at approximately 11:25am. I met with victim Syed Naque, who stated he was outside his resident when a medium size dog (black) came up from behind him and bit him on his right thigh. Mr. Naque stated the dog continue to come at him in a aggressive manner even after he went inside the house, the dog would charged the side door. A next door neighbor had to get the dog to leave the area. Mr. Naque stated the dog owner did come over to apologize in regards to the incident. I explained Mr. Naque

P (Betty Messa) brought this action against D (James Sullivan, Helen Sullivan and the Keyman's Club) to recover damages for the bodily injuries which she sustained as the result of being bitten by the defendants' dog. The complaint was based on two theories: first, a common law action for the keeping of a vicious animal and, second, an action based on what is commonly known as the "Dog Bite Statute" (Ill. Rev Stats 1963, c 8, § 12d).

Reasoning: The state provided sufficient evidence that based off the defendant's prior history of purchasing aggressively powerful dogs and failure to train them. She also failed to ignore the advice from experts for proper training and the warnings for failure to do so. She has also failed to properly secure her fence and the evidence for the prior incidents of her dogs getting loose. The evidence was sufficient to prove that she could have foreseen the possibility of her dogs killing someone.

A court will not grant summary judgment when there is a question of whether or not a person is a harborer when he allows a dog to temporarily stay on property he owns, but does not permanently live in. Anderson, 816 N.W.2d 633. One of the defendants, the father Mr. Christopherson, contended that since he was not the registered owner of the dog, nor did he reside in the home in which the dog was staying in, despite owning the property, he could not have been a harborer of the dog, and therefore, could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries when the dog knocked him over. The court, however, held that since Mr. Christopherson, had knowledge of the dog staying in his home, as well as an understanding of the dog’s rules and conduct, and was

On 2/1/16 at around 1030PM visitor Lynn Hill proceeding to visit OG-3242 was walking to the Arbor Ridge Lobby from the visitors lot and proceeded to pet Mr. David Furman’s of EV-2129 dog before walking in the front sliding doors. According to the Mrs. Hill the dog did not show any aggression while she petted it but upon turning away the dog bit Mrs. Hill on the right calf leaving a wound about the size of a nickel. Mrs. Hill was hesitant to report it because she did not see any problem with the animal but wanted to make sure that the dogs shots were up to date. The family of Mr. David Furman was reportedly contacted by the charge nurse of EV-1 & EV-2 and confirmed that the animal’s shots were up to date. Mrs. Hill was not upset and did not

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.

Setting Lagoda aside, based on the little evidence in favor of Mr. Thompson, there still may not exist sufficient evidence to impose liability on Ms. Lewis pursuant to precedent set by Collier v Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 (2004). In Collier, the appellate division ruled in favor of the defendant’s motion for summary judgement as they found the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendants were aware of their dog’s vicious propensities.