Problem Solving
Can Anderson bring a scienter action against Barnes for being bitten by Ringo?
The liability of scienter is determined if the owner had prior knowledge of the animals dangerous propensity.
1.1 Is Ringo a dangerous animal?
• Ringo is said to be an inherently dangerous animal catergorised as ‘ferae naturae’.
• The facts state that Ringo is a dingo. The facts also state that Ringo attacked Anderson by biting him and also chased the chickens on his property.
• Therefore, Ringo’s behaviour is consistent with the category of dog he is.
1.2 Is Barnes liable for Ringo escaping from her backyard?
• Barnes’ duty of care is to use secure fencing so as to ‘keep’ ringo from escaping.
• The facts state that Ringo escaped from Barne’s property due to fencing …show more content…
1.3 Did Barnes have knowledge of Ringo’s vicious propensity?
• An owner is liable if they have knowledge of an animal’s vicious propensity.
• The facts state that Barnes had knowledge that Ringo was a Dingo.
• Therefore Barnes had knowledge of Ringo’s category of animal, which resulted in the animal being kept in what was thought to be a secured fenced backyard.
1.4 Is Barnes liable for the harm Ringo caused when he bit Anderson?
• Scienter Liability states that when an animal known to be dangerous is kept, that owner is liable for any harm caused.
• The facts state that Barnes was the owner of Ringo. The facts state that Ringo attacked Anderson.
• Therefore Barnes is liable for the dog bite to Anderson.
Barnes, the owner of Ringo, is considered liable for the attack. This ‘vicious act’ is determined as a scienter action as Barnes had knowledge of the animals vicious propensity.
Does Anderson owe a duty of care to Barnes regarding the damage to her car?
A reasonable person breaches a standard of care if there is a high probability that not taking proper precaution results in a significant
Can Anderson bring a scienter action against Barnes for being bitten by Ringo?
The liability of scienter is determined if the owner had prior knowledge of the animals dangerous propensity.
1.1 Is Ringo a dangerous animal?
• Ringo is said to be an inherently dangerous animal catergorised as ‘ferae naturae’.
• The facts state that Ringo is a dingo. The facts also state that Ringo attacked Anderson by biting him and also chased the chickens on his property.
• Therefore, Ringo’s behaviour is consistent with the category of dog he is.
1.2 Is Barnes liable for Ringo escaping from her backyard?
• Barnes’ duty of care is to use secure fencing so as to ‘keep’ ringo from escaping.
• The facts state that Ringo escaped from Barne’s property due to fencing …show more content…
1.3 Did Barnes have knowledge of Ringo’s vicious propensity?
• An owner is liable if they have knowledge of an animal’s vicious propensity.
• The facts state that Barnes had knowledge that Ringo was a Dingo.
• Therefore Barnes had knowledge of Ringo’s category of animal, which resulted in the animal being kept in what was thought to be a secured fenced backyard.
1.4 Is Barnes liable for the harm Ringo caused when he bit Anderson?
• Scienter Liability states that when an animal known to be dangerous is kept, that owner is liable for any harm caused.
• The facts state that Barnes was the owner of Ringo. The facts state that Ringo attacked Anderson.
• Therefore Barnes is liable for the dog bite to Anderson.
Barnes, the owner of Ringo, is considered liable for the attack. This ‘vicious act’ is determined as a scienter action as Barnes had knowledge of the animals vicious propensity.
Does Anderson owe a duty of care to Barnes regarding the damage to her car?
A reasonable person breaches a standard of care if there is a high probability that not taking proper precaution results in a significant