![]() "Constructive knowledge" means that the landlord should have found out that the vicious dog was on the property. In one state (California) the victim must prove actual knowledge if the tenant's dog resided on residential premises, but only constructive knowledge if the attack happened on commercial property. Not all states allow this cause of action, however. One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking. The basis for this cause of action is Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965), which imposes liability on a defendant who negligently performs an undertaking to render services: The underlying act or omission is the unreasonable failure of the defendant to eliminate the danger, warn of it, or protect the visitor from it. When a person in possession of land fails to protect a visitor from a dangerous dog, this type of negligence is sometimes pursued under the doctrine of premises liability. When an adult invites a child into the adult's home, for example, the courts of many states say that a "special relationship" exists between that adult and child, requiring the adult to take more precautions than if the guest was an adult. See CDC, Animals in Schools and Daycare Settings see also CDC, Compendium of Measures to Prevent Disease Associated with Animals in Pubilc Settings, 2011, MMWR, May 6, 2011, 60(RR04) 1-24.įor some victims, the rules of negligence are modified to some extent. As an example, it is clear that, in a daycare center, allowing a child to have unsupervised contact with a dog is negligent, because the CDC has published guidelines to that effect. Proof of negligence comes in many forms, including the testimony of witnesses, admissions by the defendant, physical evidence, and violation of laws or guidelines. 2003) (holding that “ll the surrounding facts and circumstances should have been examined to determine the foreseeability question,” and “whether a reasonable person would have realized that a large, unknown dog roaming free in a small bar with drunken patrons involved an unreasonable risk of harm is a question for a jury.”). ![]() )Ĭourts recognize that even where a dog’s owner had no actual knowledge of prior attacks, “liability may arise depending upon the kind and character of the particular animal concerned, the circumstances in which it is placed, and the purposes for which it is employed or kept.” Rowland v. Breaking a promise to keep a dog confined away from the eventual victim may constitute negligence. Negligence can consist of putting a watchdog on a bed with a crying infant. An example of an unreasonable action would be a dog owner letting go of his dog's leash when another dog approaches so that the dogs can "play." An unreasonable omission might be the failure to keep a dog away from guests, where the dog is known to play too roughly and knock people down. The doctrine of negligence may make a person liable not only for bites but also for non-bite injuries. Courts consider whether an ordinarily prudent and careful person would have foreseen the possibility of harm as a result of the act or omission - not the particular injuries that resulted, but the fact that harm of some sort could occur. An act or omission is unreasonable when it is done with a lack of ordinary care that is, the absence of the kind of care a reasonably prudent and careful person would exercise in similar circumstances. Negligence is usually defined as an unreasonable action, or unreasonable omission to take action or give a warning. " Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 302, comment (a), states, “In general, anyone who does an affirmative act is under a duty to others to exercise the care of a reasonable man to protect them against an unreasonable risk of harm to them arising out of the act.” ![]() With certain exceptions, dog owners, people who handle dogs, people who harbor dogs, landlords, stores, animal control departments, school districts and everyone else connected in any way with a dog can be held responsible if their negligence causes injuries inflicted by the dog. Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 302, provides, "A negligent act or omission may be one which involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through. In almost every jurisdiction, a person is liable for all losses and damages that result from his or her negligence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |