Question

Leila owns five acres of land on Oahu in an area of single-family homes on mostly one-acre plots. Leila’s property contains her house and three outbuild­ings.

Among the animals housed in the outbuildings are a dog and a tiger. Mary, a neighbor, is jogging (running) past Leila’s property.

(1) Un­der what circumstance is Leila strictly liable if the dog bites Mary?

(2) Un­der what circumstance is Leila strictly liable if the tiger bites Mary?

(3) If Leila is not strictly liable, what is another basis of liability? (another claim Mary cam make against Leila). What would Mary need to prove?

Answer 1

These are all cases of Tort, which means that the conduct was such that it causes harm of other people.

1) Leila is not strictly liable if the dog bites Mary, It can be a case of intentional tort if it can be proved that Leila provoked/directed the dog to bite Mary or it can be a case of negligent tort in case dog bit Mary as a result of negligence on part of Leila.

2) Leila is always strictly liable in case the tiger bites Mary because keeping wild animals is a ground for strict liability without any need to prove negligence

3) If Leila is not strictly liable then other basis for proving liability are under intentional tort or negligent tort. It is intentional if it can be proved by Mary that Leila intentionally got her bit by the dog. Similarly it is negligent tort if it can be proved that Leila did not exercise enough care and Mary was bit due to negligence on part of Leila.