site-wide search

SomaliNet Forums: Archives

This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...

Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts

This is just to stimulate legal discussions amongst the students who are in the legal field,,u r welcome to contribute to this first Tort law case,,,

SomaliNet Forum (Archive): General Discusions: Archive (Before Mar. 13, 2001): This is just to stimulate legal discussions amongst the students who are in the legal field,,u r welcome to contribute to this first Tort law case,,,
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

C/qani

Monday, February 19, 2001 - 08:00 pm
I have come across this question in one of these law web sites designed for students to benefit. It comprises a lot of Tort principles and how you as a lawyer will adress this issues.
This is a question that needs a lot of consideration given its broad scope. Antone who can contribute is welcome and i hope if you have similar questions that will help us too in our quest to post them ,,,thank you


QUESTION 1
Terrified by a spate of burglaries and car thefts in her neighborhood and unable
to afford a high-tech home security system, Hannah Hill decided to buy a guard dog. After
considering a number of breeds, Hill bought a pit bull on the theory that the breed’s notoriety
as a vicious fighting dog would provide extra deterrence against would-be criminals. S h e
placed the dog in her fenced yard and erected prominent warning signs along the fence
stating, “WARNING! GUARD DOG ON DUTY!”
The day after Hill brought the dog home, Timmy Morgan, a dog-loving two-year-
old who lived next door to Hill, saw the dog in Hill’s yard and was thrilled. As hi
mother was busy folding laundry, Timmy slipped out the front door and toddled toward Hill’s
house. As Timmy approached the fence, the dog bared its teeth and snarled, but Tiimy
mistook the dog’s behavior for a greeting and continued to approach.
Two bystanders saw Timmy approaching the snarling dog and immediately
realized the grave danger: Scott Rex, a passing motorist, and Dr. Elsa Shaw, a cancer
surgeon at the local veterans hospital who lived across the street from Hill and was gardening
in her front yard. As Dr. Shaw looked on, Rex slammed on his brakes and leaped from his
car, intending to grab the boy and pull him back from the fence. After Rex had sprinted half
way across the yard toward Timmy, however, Rex realized that, in his rush to save the boy,
he had forgotten to put his car into park. He glanced back and saw hi prized 1962
Thunderbird coupe rolling slowly forward toward an ornamental stone mailbox on the
Morgans’ property. Realizing that the original paint on his treasured car would be damaged
if it came to rest against the mailbox, Rex immediately turned and raced back to try to stop
his car. A minute later, as Timmy reached out toward the fence, Hill’s dog leaped over the
fence and mauled the boy in the Morgans’ yard. Almost immediately after that, Rex’s car hit
the mailbox, causing $500 in damages to Rex’s car and $75 in damages to the Morgans’
mailbox.
Discuss any potential tort claims that might be asserted against Hill, Shaw
and/or Rex. Be sure to discuss all available theories of recovery, their chances for success,
and the scope of each potential defendant’s liability, if any.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Anissa

Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 03:31 am
c/qani
It is qiute a difficult question indeed. Iam not into a law school but i am planning to go to one next year.
I have printed a version of it and will try to think as to the proper remedies for all claimants.
peace out

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Durgal

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 09:39 am
Cabdi Qani are you law student, if so why did you choose? Sister Anissa why are you interested in law? I am just curious, because most of the Somalis tend to major computers. I read a lot legal stuff mainly Islamic law and its development. I am always fascinated by the moral reasoning of particular ruling under Islamic Law, and how it has been consistent through out ages something which Western law seems to value less.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Tee Dub

Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 03:58 pm
I think that the potential torts which could be claimed are against Rex and Shaw. Rex was negligent in his haste to save the young boy. He should be responsible for the damage caused to and by his car. He also was negligent in not continuing to assist the child from being mauled by the dog. At the same time the mother of little Timmy is also negligent in not keeping a close eye on her child. She should be charged with child endangerment. In the worse case scenario this would result in the child being placed in the custody of protective services. The neighbor, Shaw, should be charged under the good samaritan law which states that if a person is aware that another individual is in need of help and makes no effort to assist the individual they are an accessory to the tort/crime that has occurred. In this case Ms. Shaw was aware of the danger the boy was in but failed to offer any form of assistance. If this statute is in effect in the state in which this took place she should be charged with a violation of that statute.
The dog owner took necessary precautions by putting up the signs, but in the case of a 2 year old illiterate child those measures were insufficient. Accordingly she should be charged with unwillful child endangerment and should pay all medical expenses incurred by the boy.
That's pretty much my take on it. Thanks for such an intruiging question. This is the best forums I've been to so far.
Salams
TeeDub

Feel like posting? Pleaase click here for the list of current forums.