Dobrin V. Stebbins Case Study

Ralph Woodley and his son Harvey went to visit the local zoo. After spending few hours there visiting the various exhibits, they decided to visit one final exhibit building. Although this building looked like all the rest at the zoo, it was set apart from the majority. Upon walking up to the building, they spotted a large dog that seemed friendly at first and it nuzzled them. In a playful manner, the son made a snowball to throw at his father, who ducked and inadvertently the dog got hit. This startled the dog and it proceeded to attack Harvey and bit him four times on his right elbow causing lacerations that required 117 stitches.
Mr. Woodley’s friend on his visit found out that the building in question was not an exhibition building of the zoo, but rather the private residence of the zoo groundskeeper Arthur Androcles. Ralph said that there were no signs informing that it was a residence, neither was it bound by any fences, borders or barriers which could distinguish it from the other exhibition buildings. However he did admit that the building was set apart from the rest of the brick buildings. He also pointed out that there were no signs warning of the dog to which …show more content…
Stebbins, the plaintiff, who came to sell magazines, was walking up a path which led to the defendant's home when he got bitten twice. Both plaintiff’s and defendant’s sides agreed that there were no signs or other warnings meant to prohibit the use of that path. It was held that if a path is provided by a property owner which leads to the private residence, then any person accessing the path during the ordinary hours of the day is implicitly granted a license provided that person is conducting lawful business. Furthermore the court also specified that if signs were present to warn the person against accessing the property, then the license won’t be considered granted. Since there were no signs that prohibited the access to the path, the plaintiff had attained the license to