LEGAL PRINCIPLE: (i) An occupier is not responsible to a trespass except in respect of wilful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregards, (ii) Master is liable for the acts of the employee/servant.
FACTS: A farmhouse is located in South Delhi on 2 acre plot of land. The owner of the farmhouse keeps a specially trained ferocious dog to guard his property. He also employs a dog-handler to handle this dog and instructs all his other employees to avoid the dog. A sign is also put up on the gate saying "Beware of Dog". On the afternoon of 26th January, a group of poor boys playing cricket in a nearby park hit the ball into the farmhouse. A 14-year boy enters the farmhouse to get the ball. The dog attacks the boy and he dies of the injuries. The family of the boy sues farmhouse owner for damages.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: (i) An occupier is not responsible to a trespass except in respect of wilful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregards, (ii) Master is liable for the acts of the employee/servant.
FACTS: A farmhouse is located in South Delhi on 2 acre plot of land. The owner of the farmhouse keeps a specially trained ferocious dog to guard his property. He also employs a dog-handler to handle this dog and instructs all his other employees to avoid the dog. A sign is also put up on the gate saying "Beware of Dog". On the afternoon of 26th January, a group of poor boys playing cricket in a nearby park hit the ball into the farmhouse. A 14-year boy enters the farmhouse to get the ball. The dog attacks the boy and he dies of the injuries. The family of the boy sues farmhouse owner for damages.
The correct option is C The owner is liable because the dog had a vicious or savage propensity and he had knowledge of the same
- Tort law in general does not impose a very high standard of care on the home owner towards trespassers. But a minimum reasonable care is required to be exercised which involves not unnecessarily exposing a person to danger. This includes preventing harm from animals with dangerous propensities. Further, Lord Pearson in Videan v British Transport Commission had observed that with less of playing space and less supervision of children, there are high chances of children tempting to trespass. So, people are expected to prevent danger to children trespassing for playing purpose.
- In the present case as well, it was the duty of owner of the ferocious dog to take reasonable care before letting out the dog open as in case of children, there is high chances of trespassing without knowledge. Hence, the owner is liable because the dog had a vicious or savage propensity and he had knowledge of the same.
- Tort law in general does not impose a very high standard of care on the home owner towards trespassers. But a minimum reasonable care is required to be exercised which involves not unnecessarily exposing a person to danger. This includes preventing harm from animals with dangerous propensities. Further, Lord Pearson in Videan v British Transport Commission had observed that with less of playing space and less supervision of children, there are high chances of children tempting to trespass. So, people are expected to prevent danger to children trespassing for playing purpose.
- In the present case as well, it was the duty of owner of the ferocious dog to take reasonable care before letting out the dog open as in case of children, there is high chances of trespassing without knowledge. Hence, the owner is liable because the dog had a vicious or savage propensity and he had knowledge of the same.
