|
:
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.
|
Linear Mode
