Hardy's Wolfdogs: Coquihalla Highway

Facts: Hardy owned five wolfdogs, which were kept in an enclosure on his property near the Coquihalla Highway. The enclosure is secured only by a low fence and simple hook-locks. On the day of the incident, his friend Laurel, dressed in bright clown attire, was riding his unicycle near Hardy’s property, juggling torches, honking an antique horn, and laughing loudly. Startled by Laurel’s sudden appearance and loud honking, Lucille, who was visiting Hardy, quickly left through the back gate, accidentally leaving it open. This allowed the wolfdogs to escape onto the highway, where they were struck by passing vehicles, causing damage to one car’s front bumper. Drivers reported being distracted by Laurel’s actions near the highway, and icy road
Hardy’s containment measures were minimal and failed to prevent the wolfdogs from reaching the highway, where they caused damage to a car. Although Lucille’s actions in leaving the gate open contributed to the escape, Hardy owed a duty of care to secure his wolfdogs, and closeness to a busy highway, remains considerable. Additionally, Laurel’s unusual and distracting behaviour near the road may support an argument that his actions contributed to the accident, potentially reducing Hardy’s liability. However, Hardy’s primary responsibility to contain the wolfdogs places substantial accountability on him for the resulting property
Similar to the defendants in the case Ruckheim v Robinson, where liability was imposed after a dog escaped its pen and caused an accident. In Ruckheim v Robinson, the court found the defendants were responsible because they had inadequately secured the dog, allowing it to escape and causing injury to a motorcyclist. Despite the defendants’ belief that the pen would contain the dog, the court concluded that any reasonable person could have seen the risk that the dog could escape by jumping from the doghouse near the fence. Hardy’s decision to secure his wolfdogs with a low fence and simple hook-locks proved inadequate, leading to their escape onto a busy highway, where they directly caused vehicle damage, including damage to the front bumper of one car. Like the pen in Ruckheim v Robinson, Hardy’s containment setup lacked sufficient barriers to prevent his animals from escaping. As a result, Hardy could be held liable for the vehicle damage, given that his wolfdogs’ escape was directly linked to his inadequate containment measures. Hardy, in his potential defence, could argue that the accident was caused in part by Laurel’s actions (such as the loud horn and juggling), which distracted the drivers and contributed to the wolfdogs being hit. If Hardy could prove his claim against Laurel successfully, this could potentially reduce Hardy's responsibility under