Nich Zlevor
Case Analysis: Schlippenfall
Thesis: Schlippenfall will not be able to recover on a claim against Tee for his injuries.
Rule Section:
The first rule applicable to this potential case is the Illinois Dog-Bite statue, officially referred to as Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 8, para 366 (1973). This statute states the owner of a dog attacking or injuring a person(s) is liable for damages so long as [1] the injury is caused by a dog owned by the defendant, [2] there is a lack of provocation, [3] the inured person is behaving peaceably, and [4] the injured person is legally permitted to be where he or she is during the contact. All four criteria must be satisfied for liability. Previous cases have set precedents for the extent and limitations …show more content…
Lewis, a young girl, at the tender age of two and half years old, inadvertently fell or stepped on the defendant’s dog’s tail as a result of playing ‘crack-the-whip’ in the defendant’s backyard. In response, the dog, whose attention was occupied by chewing on a bone, pawed the young girl in the left eye thereby permanently damaging a tear duct in said eye. When the statute was administered to the factual evidence of the case, it was determined that only three out of the four criteria for determining liability were fulfilled. Despite the plaintiff urging otherwise, the court determined the young woman’s actions, no matter how inadvertent they may have been, constitute provocation in the state of Illinois. The court found the defendant’s young age (two and half years) to not absolve her, and went on further to claim the dog’s reaction to the defendant stepping on the tail is a perfectly reasonable …show more content…
Lewis. In Schlippenfall’s case, Dr. Iben Schlippenfall, an eighty-year-old gentleman, accidently jabbed the Tee’s large Presa Canario family dog as it was peacefully resting in the apartment complex hallway – an apartment complex in which both Schlippenfall and the Tee family reside. In his old age, Schlippenfall has developed an incredibly severe case of near-sightedness; a condition that led him to believe the dog was a bulge in the carpet. For his own safety, he tried to push the “bulge” down with his cane, and the dog reacted by jumping up on Schlippenfall’s shoulders, knocking the cane from his hand, and barking loudly in his face. This altercation resulted in Schlippenfall having a heart attack and falling down to the ground thereby injuring his hip and
Case Analysis: Schlippenfall
Thesis: Schlippenfall will not be able to recover on a claim against Tee for his injuries.
Rule Section:
The first rule applicable to this potential case is the Illinois Dog-Bite statue, officially referred to as Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 8, para 366 (1973). This statute states the owner of a dog attacking or injuring a person(s) is liable for damages so long as [1] the injury is caused by a dog owned by the defendant, [2] there is a lack of provocation, [3] the inured person is behaving peaceably, and [4] the injured person is legally permitted to be where he or she is during the contact. All four criteria must be satisfied for liability. Previous cases have set precedents for the extent and limitations …show more content…
Lewis, a young girl, at the tender age of two and half years old, inadvertently fell or stepped on the defendant’s dog’s tail as a result of playing ‘crack-the-whip’ in the defendant’s backyard. In response, the dog, whose attention was occupied by chewing on a bone, pawed the young girl in the left eye thereby permanently damaging a tear duct in said eye. When the statute was administered to the factual evidence of the case, it was determined that only three out of the four criteria for determining liability were fulfilled. Despite the plaintiff urging otherwise, the court determined the young woman’s actions, no matter how inadvertent they may have been, constitute provocation in the state of Illinois. The court found the defendant’s young age (two and half years) to not absolve her, and went on further to claim the dog’s reaction to the defendant stepping on the tail is a perfectly reasonable …show more content…
Lewis. In Schlippenfall’s case, Dr. Iben Schlippenfall, an eighty-year-old gentleman, accidently jabbed the Tee’s large Presa Canario family dog as it was peacefully resting in the apartment complex hallway – an apartment complex in which both Schlippenfall and the Tee family reside. In his old age, Schlippenfall has developed an incredibly severe case of near-sightedness; a condition that led him to believe the dog was a bulge in the carpet. For his own safety, he tried to push the “bulge” down with his cane, and the dog reacted by jumping up on Schlippenfall’s shoulders, knocking the cane from his hand, and barking loudly in his face. This altercation resulted in Schlippenfall having a heart attack and falling down to the ground thereby injuring his hip and