View Single Post
  #13  
Old 23 May 2007, 04:41 PM
forceflow15
 
Posts: n/a
Teacher

Quote:
Originally Posted by Embra View Post
T -snip-

Even before the various statutes were enacted, I can't really see common law getting as detailed as "one free bite": it might have been relevant in a decision about whether liability would attach to a negligent owner (i.e. if the owner had done everything reasonable to prevent their dog biting people but the dog was somehow provoked in an unforeseeable way).
Actually, under English common law, at least as practiced here in America and taught by the Torts professor referenced in my sigline, dogs can be entitled to one free bite. For an owner to be liable, he must have some form of scienter or knowledge. In dog bite cases, it is knowledge that the specific animal, not the breed, is likely to bite. This can be shown either by showing that the dog bit someone, or that the owner feared the dog might, and took extra precautions to protect others.

Based onthat, it is likely that under common law the sign in the OP would not be the basis for more liability.
Reply With Quote