FindArena > Find Arena > Law

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 ()
JohnMalkovitzch : REPOST DUE TO PEOPLE FALSELY ACCUSING ME OF POSTING A HOMEWORK QUESTION. I am severely disabled and too ill to work on a master's degree. Even if i could it would not be in law. Besides YA allows people to ask for help on homework within reason.



I AM LOOKING FOR FACTUAL KNOWLEDGEABLE ANSWERS, not opinions...I have my own opinion.


these are 2 of my neighbors....i don't particularly like either of them (the following is why I don't like them..not related to the case).

one stole socks out of the Laundromat (not mine)....took one sock from each pair....

the other drove over barricades to get into the parking lot that has just been repaved...in a company vehicle...

assuming these are the facts as they relate to the case:

Neighbor A has a 14 year old--usually calm--pitbull. It has not been known to be aggressive

Neighbor B goes up to the dog---which is on a short leash being controlled by neighbor A......asks to pet it....when she is told no that the dog doesn't like strangers...she proceeded toward it anyway and got bit

the neighbors did not really know each other except in passing.

the injury is apparently minor...only needing treatment in the hospital emergency room (outpatient) as a precaution....a lawyer is involved which makes me thing she is trying to make a major case out of it.

B is suing A.

according to law (and not you can sue over anything doctrine)....should neighbor A be responsible...

This is in NJ


(my friend also has a dog that doesn't like strangers--it will aggressively bark and snarl and may snap at you..but doesn't actually bite..so not liking strangers doesn't necessarily mean prone to biting as someone else suggested.)
I DID TELL YOU ......AS I SAID...IT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN KNOWN TO BE AGGRESSIVE... WHICH MEANS IT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND THAT WAY BY A COURT
OMG___I EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOT LIKING STRANGERS AND LIKELY TO BITE.......AND THAT NOT LIKING STRANGERS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN LIKELY TO BITE.
and i doubt a jury will be involved
  Reply With Quote
  #2 ()
MegaProfitdade : Has the dog previously been found by the courts to be a "dangerous dog?" (Most states have a "dangerous dog" statute which makes the owner liable per se.) You don't tell us... but you could look in the NJ Code.for it.
  Reply With Quote
more..
  #3 ()
reeryhortaria : This question does not have a definitive yes or no answer. This situation is called a "Jury Question". It could go either way depending upon which side the jury or judge felt sympathetic towards.

There is a valid argument that the bite would never have happened if A. had not taken the dog into a public place where the public could be harmed. A. stating "the dog does not like strangers" is admission of guilty knowledge of someone likely to be harmed if the dog is taken out among strangers.

There is also a valid argument that A. forewarned B. and B. acted in a disregard for reasonable self preservation by approaching the dog.

When you have two valid arguments, the Jury must decide the question and generally they will decide the question based on their own likes or dislikes.
  Reply With Quote
  #4 ()
kannedeexcibe : Both parties are at fault. Most likely the judge will assign 50/50 blame.

It is true that not liking strangers is different then butting strangers. But not much different. Generally speaking if a dog doesn't like strangers then the dog is dangerous. Of course any dog can become dangerous at any time. Even the nicest of dogs is still an animal.

On the side of the guy who got bit, like wtf. I would never walk up to a dog that I didn't know. That's just stupid. I would never pet a dog that I didn't know. And if the owner gives you warning, then what was this idiot thinking. You have to put some of the blame on the guy who was bit.

If the dog bite is minor, then I don't know why a lawyer would be involved. Typical a minor dog bite is worth medical bills plus a few hundred. Not worth hiring a lawyer.
  Reply With Quote
  #5 ()
FlinnattoInee : Short Answer: A should not be liable to B for B's injuries.

B has a strict liability case against A for injuries inflicted by A's dog, but A has an affirmative defense to B's claims. A will argue that there was no negligence because his dog was kept on control on a leash (likely in compliance with state or local leash laws), that the dog has no prior history of abnormally dangerous propensities, and that although in public the dog was not being deliberately guided into the immediate vicinity of other people such that the dog would become distressed or otherwise react adversely to his surroundings. A will further argue that B should not be permitted recovery because B either assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent, or both. When A declined B's request for permission to pet A's dog in conjunction with A's explanation that his dog does not like strangers, B can be said to have been placed on actual or constructive notice of the risk posed specifically to strangers interacting with A's dog. That a reasonably prudent person would acknowledge that the ordinary risks involved in any type of interaction with any dog is the risk of being bit (like the ordinary risk of being a lion tamer is being clawed by the lion, See R.2d Torts § 515 Comment (e); or the ordinary risk of horseback riding is being bucked off the horse); That this risk is heightened by the fact that A's dog does not like strangers, that B is a stranger, that physical contact by strangers is likely to distress or provoke the same or similar animals that are or may be uncomfortable around strangers, and that dogs when provoked or distressed have a tendency to bite; That B was actually or constructively (i.e., should have been) aware of this risk, or that a reasonably prudent person having heard the explanation would be actually or constructively on notice of the risk, but by voluntarily proceeding to disregard the warning and pet the dog anyway, B's actions implicitly indicate an intention to assume the risk. And or that by voluntarily going within reach of A's dog, ignoring A's warning not to pet the dog, ignoring the risks posed by interacting with an animal not comfortable with strangers, and by making actual physical contact with A's dog to the effect of provocation or torment, B has exhibited conduct that is unreasonably negligent towards B's own safety and well-being. Thus, B should be barred from recovery pursuant to the defenses of assumption of risk and or contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff (B).

R.2d Torts § 515(2). The plaintiff's contributory negligence in knowingly and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk that a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal will do harm to his person, land or chattels, is a defense to the strict liability.

§ 515(3). The plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from the animal is a defense to the strict liability.

§ 515 Comment (c) on Subsection 2. One who without any necessity for so doing that is commensurate with the risk involved knowingly puts himself in reach of an animal that is effectively chained or otherwise confined cannot recover against the possessor or harborer of the animal.

§ 515 Comment (e) on Subsection 3. As in other cases of assumption of risk, the consent to accept the risk may be found by implication from the plaintiff's conduct in proceeding voluntarily, with full knowledge of the danger, to encounter it. Thus one employed as a lion tamer in a circus may be barred from recovery by his assumption of the risk when he is clawed by a lion. In the same manner, one who voluntarily teases and provokes a chained bear, or goes within reach of a vicious dog, is barred from recovery if he does so with knowledge of the danger.
  Reply With Quote
  #6 ()
Vorsanaffow : So I am a photographer, and run my own store with photography products. I am wanting to do a camera giveaway (camera costs 3k) but before I do this I want to make sure i'm making it as a giveaway and NOT a lotto.

There will be a prize: camera body

Way 1 to enter: Mail in a piece of paper with your information and a little paragraph on why you would like to win.

Way 2 to enter: Purchase something from the store (each purchase would give you ONE entry)

I know ONE of the option needs to be 'free' and open to anyone to do, so if I set it up like that am I ok? or would it still be considered a lotto since they can purchase additional entries??

If yes...how can I set it up to where it's a giveaway not a lotto??
  Reply With Quote
  #7 ()
KaoiljejnnSam : there are no universal laws on any subject. If you want to know if your proposal would run afoul of some law of your state, either do the research yourself or hire a lawyer to do it.
  Reply With Quote