Soooo.. i don't know, i heard something the other day, and well, okay: So there is a house with a mean dog tied up in the front, and the owner put up a sign that says "Beware--dog will bite" , you know, a sign that is warning them not to go into their yard. If a couple of kids read the sign, and go into the yard, and get bit by the dog.. do they have a right to sue the owner? is it the owners fault for having that dog outside, or should the kids just have stuck to what the sign says? i can't remember if i saw something on the news about it, like it was either a dog or like, something with the grass maybe..? but yeah just wondering what people think!
If the dog was in a fenced-in backyard, and the kids broke in, they are both the dumbest kids in the world and they have no right to sue. The right to sue would only be if the dog broke out of the fence or was tied up and came off its leash. The sign is useless if the dog isn't properly secured. The owner can't be punished for having his dog in his yard--the dog has to go out at some point.
I remember watching one of those Judge Judy-type courtroom tv shows. There was a man suing his neighbor b/c he was in a drunken stupor and went to the neighbor's child's birthday party and fell, busting his head open. The girl was maybe ten years old when this happened. The neighbor counter sued (whatever the term is) for property damages and emotional distress from the children watching him bleed all over the place. Let's just say the judge didn't rule in favor of the drunken man. Would someone sue in this situation? Perhaps. Hopefully the case would be thrown out though. Peace and love
Didn't this sort of same scenario happen with those guys at the zoo, that were taunting a tiger, and the tiger somehow escaped and killed one and mauled the other? The one that survived is supposedly attempting to sue the zoo for "injuries and emotional distress". Even though he taunted the tiger and caused the incident in the first place. The tiger should have had no way of getting out, yes, but what if the zoo was not aware the tiger even had the ability to escape (I am not sure if this was the case)? Who's at fault here? Can he really sue the zoo even though he caused the incident in the first place? Mind bending.
A tiger is a dangerous animal, and where ultrahazardous activities or conditions are concerned, some courts apply the doctrine of strict liability--that the zoo is liable on a "no fault" basis. Obviously the tiger got loose. That shouldn't ever have been able to happen. People are supposed to be able to go to zoos without assuming that kind of risk. It's like hazardous waste or an oil spill. The situation with the dog is different. There was a warning sign, and the dog didn't escape. The kids were trespassers. I guess there would be questions about how the children got into the yard, was there a fence, were the children old enough to read the warning, etc. But I'm not a lawyer or Judge Judy, so don't follow my advice and then sue me.
