Texas Dog Bite Law: Case Study

1674 Words4 Pages

Memorandum TO: Robert T.Moore, Esq. FROM: Alqarni Abdulmajeed DATE: October 25,2014 RE: Texas Dog Bite law I. Issue: 1. IS Ms. Margaret Russell liable about the injuries caused by her dog, Scooter? 2. Are the owners of the apartment complex or the management of the apartment complex liable about the injuries caused by Scooter? 3. Is Nadia may recover damages for mental anguish because of the attack on her daughter? II. Answer: _ No, Ms. Margaret Russell does not responsible by principles of strict liability and she does not condemned because what happened was without her knowledge, but she maybe is responsible by the negligence. _ Yes, the owners of the apartment complex or the management of the apartment complex are liable about the …show more content…

Margaret Russell is the owner of the dog (Scooter). After the first attacking from on Miss June, Miss June went to the complex management and told them about what happened with scooter and about his behavior and who is the owner. On other hand Miss June with some neighbors placed a notice about scooter and his dangerous behavior around the complex but they did not tell Ms. Margaret Russell directly. Ms. Margaret Russell was not know about her dog’s behavior because they did not tell her about it and she maybe is old women, so she could not go to the mail box or maybe someone brought the mail to her. As a result Ms. Margaret Russell does not responsible by principles of strict liability and she does not condemned because what happened was without her knowledge. Otherwise there are some facts that said, “Ms. Margaret Russell knew scooter could jump over the metal railing and go out the apartment” that means she is maybe responsible by the negligence. Under the rule that common in In Paul MARSHALL, Petitioner v. John C. RANNE, Respondent case that said, “All animals are not vicious and a possessor of a non-vicious animal may be subject to liability for his negligent handling of such an animal” Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255,259 (Tex.1974). In fact Ms. Margaret Russell believed that “..Dog will be dogs” which means she know the dog even if he was not vicious he is still has the hostile behavior that every dog has it normally when he sees some strange people. Moreover she …show more content…

Liability of either for mental anguish of bystander: In our case Blanca’s mother had so taken with grief by the incident that she is unable to sleep for days afterward and has withdrawn into herself. Under the rule that common in BOYLES v. KERR case that said “Texas has adopted the bystander rules originally promulgated by the California Supreme Court in Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal.2d 728, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 80, 441 P.2d 912, 920 (1968): (1) Whether plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it; (2) Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from others after its occurrence;

Open Document