Marko owned a cat and allowed it to roam
freely outside. In the three years he had owned the pet,...

Question

Marko owned a cat and allowed it to roam
freely outside. In the three years he had owned the pet, the animal had never
bitten anyone. The cat entered Romi’s garage. When Romi attempted to move it
outside, the cat bit her. Romi underwent four surgeries, was fitted with a
plastic finger joint, and spent more than $39,000 in medical bills. She sued
Marko, claiming both strict liability and ordinary negligence. Assume that
state law allows a domestic cat to roam freely. Evaluate both of Romi’s claims.

Shubham · Accepted Answer

In the current scenario, if Marko’s cat has attacked or bitten people in the past then this harm can be foreseeable and Marko will be liable for the incident. But according to past records, the cat has never attacked anyone before this incident and even state law allows domestic animals to roam around. It is clear that Romi will lose both her lawsuits against Marko because the cat is not considered a wild animal according to the law. According to the law, this is a pet bite that has caused the injury to Romi, in this instance,

Marko owned a cat and allowed it to roam freely outside. In the three years he had owned the pet, the animal had never bitten anyone. The cat entered Romi’s garage. When Romi attempted to move it...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment