Christie Vs Dobbyn2 Case Study

According to the case of Christie v. Dobbyn2, it is not essential for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant knew if the dog is of a vicious or mischievous nature. Plaintiff Uniqua does not have to prove if Bob’s dog was harmful by nature or had bitten any other person in the past.
By looking at the Donahue v. Belitski case, plaintiff went to the defendant property and was bitten by the dog and in this case, defendant was responsible for the damages in doctrine of scienter and negligence. Infact, in to Christie v. Dobbyn2 case, plaintiff entered defendant’s house with her 9 year old daughter. Defendant’s dog bit the little girl and was found mischievous by nature. Therefore, by observing and relating the situation of the cases, it is clear that defendant Bob is liable for negligent and the plaintiff’s injuries, as he did not keep a look at the dog. Defendant did not chain the dog properly to the tree due to which the dog was able to unchain itself and run away. …show more content…
The case of Bates (Guardian of) v. Horkoff 4 includes a girl who was bitten by a dog which attacked her by wrecking an unrepaired fence. Defendant was not strictly liable but being liable in negligence and under Occupiers’ Liability. It is the duty of the landlord to provide duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff. In addition, the case of Sturdy v. the Queen 5, in which 19 years old Sturdy was attacked by a bear in the Maligne Lake District of Jasper National Park, the crown was negligent and failed to use reasonable care to prevent damage. By looking at these cases, it can be considered that the government of Canada is liable for the negligence and has to provide reasonable duty of care and maintenance. Uniqua is not negligent in this situation as she was already injured plus the fence was broken. Therefore, there was no contribution of