Bussell v. Tri-County Humane Society case brief
50 S.W.3d 303
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
50 S.W.3d 303
CASE SYNOPSIS: The Circuit
Court of Warren County, Missouri, granted summary judgment in favor
of respondents, dog owners and humane society, after appellant mother
brought suit after the dog bit her minor child. The mother
appealed.
FACTS: The mother claimed the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the former owner because he owed a duty to the public to protect it from the dog, and there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the transfer of the dog's ownership; and in granting summary judgment in favor of a woman who looked after the dog regarding whether she acted as an agent of the former owner and whether she made misrepresentations of fact as to the dog's nature. The court found it was not possible to demonstrate whether the dog demonstrated vicious propensities that would trigger the former owner's duty to protect the public. There was no indication on the record that the dog's bite was one that would trigger the former owner's liability for subsequent bites. The woman who looked after the dog neither owned nor harbored dogs at any time, and had no knowledge of their propensities. As a matter of law, she could not be held strictly liable for the dog's actions.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
FACTS: The mother claimed the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the former owner because he owed a duty to the public to protect it from the dog, and there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the transfer of the dog's ownership; and in granting summary judgment in favor of a woman who looked after the dog regarding whether she acted as an agent of the former owner and whether she made misrepresentations of fact as to the dog's nature. The court found it was not possible to demonstrate whether the dog demonstrated vicious propensities that would trigger the former owner's duty to protect the public. There was no indication on the record that the dog's bite was one that would trigger the former owner's liability for subsequent bites. The woman who looked after the dog neither owned nor harbored dogs at any time, and had no knowledge of their propensities. As a matter of law, she could not be held strictly liable for the dog's actions.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment