business law legal summary

Short Answer:

Yes, because cases involving animal attacks and their owner’s responsibility falls under the category of a strict liability tort under civil law. In any case, if the circumstances above meet the criteria of the below state statute and communicate that a preponderance of evidence was met then he would in fact be liable.

Rules and Law:

Citation: John Doe v. Jane Doe, 13 G.A. App. 261 (2021) Citation: Ga. Code Ann., § 51-2-7 

§ 51-2-7. Vicious animals, liability for injuries caused by

A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured. In proving vicious propensity, it shall be sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated government, and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence not at heel or on a leash. The foregoing sentence shall not apply to domesticated fowl including roosters with spurs. The foregoing sentence shall not apply to domesticated livestock.

Analysis

Mr. Obert is a business man who currently resides in a permanent residence in Georgia that is surrounded by a gate. Obert has 4 Doberman guard dogs that serve to protect his property within which he operates many of his businesses through surveillance cameras located at the stores and direct contact with employees. In essence this residence also acts as a hub for his business. One day a situation arises where he had to promptly leave his “command center”. It’s within this rush that he forgets to leave one of his dogs in the kennel before leaving. While he is away, his guard dog (who has had a grand amount of experience in stopping intruders) escapes the confines of the gate that divides Obert’s home from the public street. Sparkles, outside of his domain attacks and mauls a jogger. The authorities are called and the dog, still rabid, has to be put down by the officers.

Obert is at a significant loss when it comes to him being free from liability. Remembering that strictly liable does not require intention or negligence is extremely important in this situation. In any case even if he had taken the necessary precautions and that animal had still gotten out, then he would still be liable for the damages. However, in the case of compensation for the victim’s medical expenses, it does appear that the defendant has an extremely convincing case. Sparkles was let to run free, and as a vicious animal (guard dog) was left to its own device outside of a reasonably safe place. Obert’s dog was also not restrained and escaped onto the public street where the attack occurred. Also as a rule of thumb, the injuries did occur at the given time and there were many witnesses to this occurrence (the jogger’s mauled half-leg being the chief witness along with 4 officers).

While the fact that the attack occurred is not in dispute, Obert wants to claim that the jogger may have aggravated the dog provoking the attack. However, this cannot be claimed as a defense of liability because of the conduct of the jogger. The jogger went on a run, on a sidewalk designated for such activity, in a reasonably sage setting with no knowledge of the risks of being mauled by a Rottweiler. Furthermore, the animal in question is not livestock nor has it been domesticated as such. They were kept as vicious and loyal animals, but their level of danger and viciousness can be reasonably assumed because of their role to Obert as his property.

Conclusion:

So would Obert be financially responsible for the damage his dog inflicted on a passerby jogger while the dog protecting his home/business? In accordance with Georgia state law on vicious animals and liability for the injuries they cause, yes, Mr. Obert would be financially liable. Given the facts of the case at hand, the preponderance of evidence is stacked against Obert as he does not have a real say in him not being responsible for Sparkles conduct. In fact because this does fall into the category of a strict liability tort, really the strongest piece of evidence against Obert is that the attack occurred and that injuries were suffered because of it. Mr. Obert would owe for the medical damages that the jogger would produce to the court. Whether or not he would be responsible for pain and suffering as well is not yet to be decided, but so far as medical expenses go and his liability he would in fact be responsible under Georgia law.

Legal Summary Example 2

Issue: Billy built his vacation cabin in NC on his property. He accidentally built part of it on his neighbor’s (Joseph’s) property. Can he claim ownership of that property.

Concise Answer: Yes, if the conditions for Adverse possession are met. A citizen in North Carolina can gain possession of someone else’s property through adverse possession if he or she maintains the property in an open and notorious manner, hostile manner, exclusive manner, continuous manner, and use it for the statutory period of time (20 yrs or 7 yrs under a color title).

Rules or Applicable law: There are 2 rules that apply to this case N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-38(a) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-40. The first rule, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-38(a) states, “When a person or those under whom he claims is and has been in possession of any real property, under known and visible lines and boundaries and under color of title, for seven years, no entry shall be made or action sustained against such possessor by a person having any right or title to the same, except during the seven years next after his right or title has descended or accrued, who in default of suing within that time shall be excluded from any claim thereafter made; and such possession, so held, is a perpetual bar against all persons not under disability: Provided, that commissioner's deeds in judicial sales and trustee's deeds under foreclosure shall also constitute color of title.”. The second rule, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-40 states, “Twenty years adverse possession. No action for the recovery or possession of real property, or the issues and profits thereof, shall be maintained when the person in possession thereof, or defendant in the action, or those under whom he claims, has possessed the property under known and visible lines and boundaries adversely to all other persons for 20 years; and such possession so held gives a title in fee to the possessor, in such property, against all persons not under disability. (C.C.P., s. 23; Code, s. 144; Rev., s. 384; C.S., s. 430.)”.

Analysis: If Billy wants to adversely possess Joseph’s land he would have to be open and notorious about it meaning that Billy is not trying to hide from Joseph or in fact any of the public that he believes this is his land or he is assuming this as his land. Billy must also be hostile about his use of the land meaning that the Joseph (owner) did not give Billy permission to use his land. Billy must exclusively use the land meaning he protects the land from anybody else using it. Billy must be continuous about his occupation of Joseph’s land. So Billy cannot inhabit the land leave for months and then resume inhabiting the land if does do that the statutory period of time will reset. Finally Billy must inhabit the land for the statutory period of time which in North Carolina is 20 yrs, but if Billy has a color of title the statutory period of time drops from 20 yrs to 7 yrs. A color of title means that Billy had some type of legal documentation of have right to that land i.e a faulty deed or tax records of paying taxes for that land. After all this requirements have been meet Billy can take Joseph to court to legally be granted the land that he has been adversely possession for 7 or 20 yrs.