Sinclair v. Okata, 874 F. Supp. 1051

D. Alaska

1994

Chapter

14

Title

Common Law Strict Liability

Page

581

Topic

Animals

Quick Notes

You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the German Sheppard had a dangerous propensity to establish strict liability

Book Name

Torts Cases, Problems, And Exercises.  Weaver, Third Edition.  ISBN:  978-1-4224-7220-0.

Issue

o         Whether you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for strict liability to apply to a dog attack that the dog had a dangerous propensity?  Yes.

Procedure

D. Alaska

o         Pl - Summary judgment Denied, because Pl offered no evidence to refute the opinion of the Df - expert.

Facts

Reason

Rules

o         Pl - Sinclair

o         Df - Okata

What happened?

o         On June 4, 1993, Daniel Reinhard was bitten in the face by Anchor, a two and a half year old German Shepherd dog.

Filed Suit

o         Katherine Sinclair, on behalf of minors, Daniel and Michelle, filed suit asserting causes of action based on negligence and strict liability.

o         17-year-old Yoshitaka let dog out while he was reading an owners manual.

o         The dog was not on a lease.

o         The dog bit Daniel in the face.

o         The dog had 5 other prior biting incidents.

Pl Arg

o         Assert that the past incidents establish that the dog had dangerous propensities and that the Okatas had actual knowledge of the dogs dangerousness.

Df Arg

o         The biting incidence were the result of nature instincts, over stimulation, protective instincts and chase instinct, but not dangerous tendencies.

Pl - Action

o         Moved for partial summary judgment on a theory of strict liability.

Domestic Animal Rule

o         An owner of a domestic animal becomes liable, regardless of fault, for injuries caused by the animal which stem from a vicious propensity, known to the owner.

Elements

1.       The animal's owner knew or should have known of the animal's "dangerous tendency", and

2.       That the dangerous tendency resulted in an injury to the claimant.

RS of Torts

o         If Anchor did have a dangerous propensity, then it is immaterial whether this propensity was driven by anger, playfulness, affection or curiosity.

Df Arg #2

o         A possessor of a domestic animal is not subjected to liability for harm simply and solely because it resulted from a dangerous propensity of the domestic animal.

Rule

o         To be strictly liable, the possessor must have known or had reason to know of a dangerous propensity or trait that was not characteristic of a domestic animal of like kind.

Df Expert Testimony

o         Defendants' expert reviewed each of the four admitted biting incidents, and as to each one she concluded that Anchor's responses were "natural" or instinctive.

Pl screwed up Did not challenge.

o         Plaintiffs offer no evidence, through expert testimony or otherwise, to refute the opinion of defendants' expert.

o         It may indeed be true that Anchor's reactions in the four or five incidents were abnormal in the sense that they were not reactions typical of domesticated dogs, but plaintiffs have not established that point beyond any reasonable dispute.

Outcome

o         Summary judgment Denied.

Rules

Domestic Animal Rule

o         An owner of a domestic animal becomes liable, regardless of fault, for injuries caused by the animal which stem from a vicious propensity, known to the owner.

RS of Torts - Arg

o         If Anchor did have a dangerous propensity, then it is immaterial whether this propensity was driven by anger, playfulness, affection or curiosity.

Rule

o         To be strictly liable, the possessor must have known or had reason to know of a dangerous propensity or trait that was not characteristic of a domestic animal of like kind.

Class Notes