Articles

Navigation

Full Site Search

Loading...

The navigation select boxes below will direct you to the selected page when you hit enter.

Topical Explanations

Primary Legal Materials

Select by Subject

Select by Species

Select Administrative Topic


World Law

Secondary Legal Materials

Great Apes and the Law

Great Apes and the Law

Maps of State Laws

Map of USA
Share |
THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS, ONLY BAD OWNERS: REPLACING STRICT LIABILITY WITH A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD IN DOG BITE CASES

Lynn A. Epstein


13 Animal Law 129 (2006)
Publish Date:
2006
Place of Publication: Lewis & Clark Law School
Printable Version

THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS, ONLY BAD OWNERS: REPLACING STRICT LIABILITY WITH A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD IN DOG BITE CASES

 

THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS, ONLY BAD OWNERS: REPLACING STRICT LIABILITY WITH A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD IN DOG BITE CASES (.pdf file - 88.53 KB)

By Lynn A. Epstein

Should the law treat dogs as vicious animals or loving family companions? This article analyzes common law strict liability as applied to dog bite cases and the shift to modern strict liability statutes, focusing on the defense of provocation. It discusses the inconsistency in the modern law treatment of strict liability in dog bite cases. The article then resolves why negligence is the proper cause of action in dog bite cases. The Author draws comparisons among dog owner liability in dog bite cases, parental liability for a child’s torts, and property owner liability for injuries caused by his property. The Author concludes by proposing a negligence standard to be applied in dog bite cases.

 

 

Top of Page
Share |