Is the owner strictly liable for any harm done by the animal or does it have to be a harm due to the animal's inherent dangerousness?
Barbri's simulated MBE had a problem on an aged and toothless bear - owner was strictly liable when the bear ambled towards a little girl and made her afraid and run and fall, injuring herself.
Did a Kaplan problem where someone had a shark tank in their backyard and invited people to look at his great white pet - someone was injured when the shark fin splashed water on him and he contracted pneumonia - no strict liability because it didn't result from the shark's dangerous qualities.
Strict liability for a dangerous animal Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
At the Drive-In
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:04 am
Re: Strict liability for a dangerous animal
Animal's inherent dangerousness.
This is really stupid and I don't agree with it(not that anyone cares what I think), but essentially, someone fleeing from what they perceive to be a dangerous wild animal is part of the inherent dangerousness of the animal.
This is really stupid and I don't agree with it(not that anyone cares what I think), but essentially, someone fleeing from what they perceive to be a dangerous wild animal is part of the inherent dangerousness of the animal.
-
Law-So-Hard
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm
Re: Strict liability for a dangerous animal
hm yeah I guess that makes sense thank youAt the Drive-In wrote:Animal's inherent dangerousness.
This is really stupid and I don't agree with it(not that anyone cares what I think), but essentially, someone fleeing from what they perceive to be a dangerous wild animal is part of the inherent dangerousness of the animal.
