Preview

Final Memo

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
4599 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Final Memo
To: Prof. Lang
From: A. Foster
Date: November 23, 2010
Re: Smith’s defenses to dog bite
Questions Presented:
1) Under Florida Statute Section 767.04 which sets the defenses in which a dog owner can avoid liability due to injury caused by a dog bite, can dog owner avoid liability by using the defense of provocation for injuries caused by a dog bite when the owner’s dog bit an 8 year old child, when said minor while dressed in a cat costume came onto our client’s property, noticed client’s Yorkshire Terrier puppy, ran up to the window in which he viewed the puppy, while knocking on client’s window and yelling “trick or treat” with other costumed children on Halloween and was bitten when the owner opened the door to hand out treats to children, and the minor was trying to retrieve treats for Halloween?
2) Under Florida Statute Section 767.04 which sets the defenses in which a dog owner can avoid liability due to injury caused by a dog bite, can dog owner avoid liability for a dog bite injury to a 8 year old child by employing the defense of the presence of a proper warning sign when the 8½” x11” cardboard warning sign in which he posted in the upper pane of his living room window, which was decorated with webbing, situated on the right side of the front of his house stated “Warning “The Beast’ Lives Here”, with a picture of a Yorkshire Terrier, where the minor failed to see the sign, and after owner opened the door, minor getting bit when dog jumped up and bit his finger when minor was trying to retrieve treats for Halloween?
Short Answer(s):
1) It is most improbable that our client can avoid liability for the dog bite injury due to the requirements in the dog bite statute. The statute provides “a defense when any negligence on the part of the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the owner of the dog by the percentage that the bitten person's negligence contributed to the biting incident.” Fla. Stat. §

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    ISSUE Is the defendant liable for the plaintiff’s injuries despite the fact that the plaintiff had singed…

    • 258 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Even though it was the first time the dog had entered the end zone to retrieve the ball, Tyler’s Bar is still liable for injuries sustained to Mr. Roseman. We can reference Wade V. American Nat. Ins. Co. and the “first bite rule” to explain this situation. Even if it was the dog’s first instant, the owner is still liable if evidence can be shown that he had prior knowledge to his canine’s inclination to commit the act that caused injury. Robert’s, the owner of the dog that caused injury to Mr. Roseman at Tyler’s Bar, clearly held prior knowledge of his dog’s natural tendencies. The owner had not only paid the breeder to train the German shepherd to catch or retrieve footballs, but also had visually watched and profited from Chip catching the…

    • 214 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Plaintiff Robert Lopez flied a claim against Adelanto Stadium, Inc. claiming negligence on fault of Defendants insufficient design and/or installation of netting protection from foul balls under California Civil Code of Procedure §1714. Compl. ¶ 3. Also, Defendant’s negligence in failure to warn of dangers of foul balls. Compl ¶ 7. Mr. Lopez alleges that Adelanto Stadium, Inc. is liable on the sole grounds that they own the stadium in which Mr. Lopez suffered said injuries. Adelanto Stadium, Inc. moves to dismiss because Mr. Lopez’s claim fails as a matter of law, since it lacks sufficient factual matter to render a finding of negligence.…

    • 1264 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pa201 Unit 3 Assignment

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Analysis: Samantha is not able to prove that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous substance on the floor; therefore, the grocery store was not negligent in its duty to the customer and cannot be held liable for Samantha’s injuries.…

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Bugusa Case Summary

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The tort of negligence in this scenario includes the five essential elements of negligence, duty, breach of duty, the breach being the cause of injury, proximate, and the resulting damages (Lucas, 2008). In a case of negligence the individual or company may be held liable not only with negligence but sometimes with trespass, injury, and even mental or emotional harm (Lucas, 2008). However, the law requires these elements are proven in order to recover in a law suit against a torfeasor for negligence (Melvin,…

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pichelman vs. Barfknecht

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Rule: A negligent tort involves the failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another’s person or property. It wouldn’t qualify for an intentional tort because Arnold and Sylvia did not willfully take actions that were likely to cause injury. Duty, Branch of Duty, Causation, and Damages are all required in order for a plaintiff to prove negligence of a defendant. The reasonable person standard, which the courts use to determine whether or not an individual owes a duty of care to another, states that the courts generally hold that landowners have a duty of care to protect individuals on their property. However, in Hudson v. Janesville Conservation Club, Hudson held that under the statute 895.52, “no owner is liable for any injury resulting from an attack by a wild animal.” An exception to this statute is if the injury occurs to a social guest who has been invited to their property by the owner. Section 895.52 of Wisconsin law also provides property owners with immunity from liability to anyone injured by a person engaging in recreational activity regardless of whether the injured person was also engaged in recreational activity.…

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    This case involves the issue of Shayla Smith, a minor child, who was injured when she and her friend Tamara went swimming (unsupervised) at the O&D Family Campground swimming pool. Mary Smith, Shayla’s mother, believes Bob and Susan Tuttle, Tamara’s parents, are liable for not properly supervising Shayla, and by the Joneses and O&D Family Campground for negligence and both for breach of duty.…

    • 1541 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    2. Maria specifically requested that Vinny not touch her, and he does, he has committed the tort of Battery. If Maria's ankle is injured, the question of fact is: Did the injury result from the fall or from Vinny's battery or both? Maria assumed the risk of injury from the conditions in the storeroom, but not from Vinny's battery. For her damages for lost wages, Maria cannot claim damages for any current wages, because she is unemployed; and it may be difficult to establish that she would have been hired as an aerobics instructor even if the injury had not occurred.…

    • 313 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Defendant, had the basic duty to prevent outside vehicles from entering the danger zone during, their dangerous explosive activities. Defendant breached their duty when one of their employees fell asleep during their shift, leaving opportunity to allow entrance to a dangerous zone; hence allowing our Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter said danger zone. Had the Defendant’s employee performed their job under the basic reasonable standard of care, our Plaintiff would have then been prevented from entering said zone, which was neglectfully unsupervised at entrance by Defendants employee. If said mentioned employee had prevented the entrance of an explosive and dangerous construction zone, our plaintiff would have also been prevented of his injuries. Our Plaintiff has since suffered major injuries arising from Defendant’s formatted employee’s negligence in which a plausible and foreseeable event of explosions from Defendant’s construction site injured our Plaintiff.…

    • 965 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Statute of Limitation – 4 years from the date of the incident giving rise to the action. Fla. Stat. §95.11(3)(a)…

    • 1113 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    5. As the property owner, the Defendant was in control of the property and had a duty to remediate the conditions and make sure the warning signs of the pool were listed and the dangers of no life guard on duty but failed to do so prior to the Plaintiff’s Injury.…

    • 1746 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    You Decide

    • 694 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Susie, Jerry and Katie drove around for about a half an hour without taking Susie home. Jerry made one stop which was located down the street where Susie lived, but Susie never got off on the first stop. At some point, Jerry lost control of the vehicle while making a left turn resulting in the truck turning over and seriously injuring Susie. After the incident Susie filed a complaint against the City of Elsewhere, Officer Ruthless, and other defendants, alleging that the City and the Police were negligent and therefore liable for her injuries. The main issue is to prove if the City and Officer Ruthless are liable for Susie’s injuries, due to the simple fact that Officer Ruthless ordered Susie Marks to ride in Jerry’s camper because of the park curfew time.…

    • 694 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Baptist V. Sampson

    • 1142 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Question: In Baptist v. Sampson, the Texas Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court that holding hospitals liable for the negligence of ER doctors should be a non-delegable duty. Explain why you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court. Under what theory can a hospital be held liable for the conduct of emergency room physicians who are independent contractors? You should be able to answer question three in no more than 2-3 pages. You need to discuss the theory of liability, what the appellate court held, what the Supreme court held...and why you believe one or the other is correct.…

    • 1142 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Attractive Nuisance

    • 2901 Words
    • 12 Pages

    Carlisle has contacted our office seeking advice regarding an action against him for injuries suffered by a neighborhood boy, Sherman, while Sherman was trespassing upon his property. You have asked me to determine whether Sherman can prevail by proving Carlisle liable for his injuries.…

    • 2901 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    One canine Californian law states that after 3 reported attacks the dog must be put down. Sound familiar to our 3 strikes law with felons? Difference is that in the end dogs don’t know any better, and react on instinct, whereas humans are to be above their instinct and are to react with reason. We don’t expect the dog to know any better, and understand that it can’t reason right from wrong sometimes but eventually if it is being a problem to society it is put down. Some might think that applying this reason to humans is ridiculous and ludicrous rationalization. We put ourselves above the canine species because we are able to rationalize, and therefore we should know better than to kill. It is obvious that if dogs aren’t above the rational influence, that they can’t be accountable for their actions; yet we “destroy” these creatures anyways. The question remains what is human kinds’ excuse? A dog’s nature propels him to attack until the threat of danger is gone; i.e. their adversary too weak to attack. We put ourselves above canines when it is we who are the brutal animals, killing our own kind sometimes for the…

    • 1612 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays