Dingo Ringo Case Summary

Barnes’s Dingo Ringo has attacked his neighbour Anderson while trying to save his chickens from the trespassing Dingo. Does Anderson have the right to bring an action against Barnes? Firstly, Barnes is liable to his pet dingo’s actions, as he is the undisputed caretaker of the dingo according to the facts. Secondly, is this a negligent action on behave of Barnes for her dingo. When examining the liability, a court will look at whether the risk of harm was caused by an animal with a ferae naturae or a mansuetae naturae, and if a ferae naturae or an animal belonging to a fierce nature cause any harm, the owner will be strictly liable for its actions.
It is a presumed fact that Dingoes are dangerous, stated in the Supreme Court of Northern Territory, in a judgment relying upon the binding precedents and scientific evidence, determining that the animals are
In examining if Anderson owes a duty of care to Barnes in respect to the damage caused to her car, by ultimately swerving to miss chickens which had escaped Anderson’s property on the road. The court will inspect the elements of a duty of care and if Anderson’s actions were negligent in respect to Barnes safety. The elements that the court will examine include; defendant owing the plaintiff a duty of care, was that duty breached and did the breach cause damage to the plaintiff.
Firstly, according to an established common law rule known as the rule from Searle v Wallbank, provides that an occupier of land bordering a road will have no duty to stop or restrict animals from straying in order to ensure that damages are not caused and the burden of providing that the area was one where fencing is reasonable shill lie upon the party seeking the damages. Therefore, will not be liable for any damages caused by stray animals. This decision was upheld in the High Court case of State Government Insurance Commission v Trigwell and