| OCR Text |
Show I by Richard J. Maughan, B.S., L.L.B. Do You Own a Dog? , Many do own dogs, and all of j us are familiar with the senti-j ments which have been written concerning dogs. Dogs as friends,' play mates, andj r ' - , 4' 4 " . Ml . J companions, and unlike some oth- er areas of com-1 ment, e. g., the! politician, these; comments about! dogs are monu- ments to canine i virtues. This at-j titude on dogs is! justifiable and is' of long standing.! it jumps up to lick her hand, but 'instead of merely licking her hand I Angel, for some unknown reason, clamps Jane's fingers between its jaws with all the force a man's best friend can muster, and leaves i Jane with a first class injury. j ! After Jane has been to the doctor doc-tor and had proper treatment for this injury, she decides that some-! one should pay. She seeks counsel,! and her attorney brings a proper action. What Happens? At the trial, John Doe, the owner, own-er, says that Angel never before had done anything even remotely resembling an unkind act, that he was not a vicious dog, and John brought witnesses to prove same. The judge, after having heardj Jane's lawyer prove that John Doe was the owner of Angel, that it was Angel that bit Jane's fingers fin-gers to the bone, and that Jane's damages amounted to a certain sum, gave Jane judgment against John for the proved damages. This he did under the mandate of the statute above quoted. The Same Case Under the Common Law Statutes such as the one mentioned men-tioned have not rendered false all, the eloquent expressions about the j noble qualities of our canine friends. They have only recogniz-J ed a social problem. One brought! on by the increase in the population popula-tion and the consequential closeness close-ness of our living conditions, together to-gether with the decline of the dog as a useful and utilitarian animal. j Every dog has its day, and it used! to be said, "Every dog is entitled to one bite," but this, as we have seen, is no longer true. Next week, let's talk about Thanksgiving and the law the Pilgrims Pil-grims talked about. See you then. R. J. Maughan St- Bernard (circa (cir-ca 1150 A. D.) wrote in his Sermo Primus: "Who loves me, let him 1150 A.D.) wrote in his Sermo! Primus, "Who loves me let him also love my dog." Sir Walter Scott in his The Talisman (1825: said, "Recollect that the Almighty who gave the dog to be companion of pur pleasures and our toils, hath invested him with a nature ! noble and incapable of deceit." Again, William Croswell Doane, (1832-1913) gave us another tender expression concerning the dog. I am quite sure he thinks that I am God Since he is God on whom each one depends. For life and all things that His- bounty sends My dear old dog, most constant con-stant of all friends. In the fact of all these noble words about "man's best friend," how do we account for definite place which dogs in general occupy! in the law of strict liability? ' ! Absolute Liability of Dog Owners, Under Utah Statute As early as 1898 the legislature of the State of Utah saw fit to enact a law whereunder the privilege priv-ilege of owning a dog ' would be saddled with legal burdens additional addi-tional to shose which were imposed im-posed by the common law. In its present form our "dog statute," as it is sometimes called, makes an owner of a dog liable for such damage as that dog does irrespective irres-pective of whether the owner knows, or has reason to know that his dog is of a vicious nature, or is even likely to cause amage to another. Why this was a change from the common law will be explained ex-plained in a moment. Right now let us look at the statute. It says: "Every person owning or keeping keep-ing a dog shall be liable in damages dam-ages for injury committed by such dog; and it shall not be necessary nec-essary in "any action brought therefor to allege or prove that such dog was of a vicious or mischievous mis-chievous disposition or that the owner or keeper thereof knew that it was vicious or mischievous." This statute, as we mentioned last week, brings a little closer' to home that part of the web of the law which we call "strict liability" lia-bility" it is also known as "liability without fault," and "absolute "ab-solute liability," because it makes every owner or keeper of a dog an actor in the drama, whetherj ; he likes it or would rather be some other place. I The way in which this statute ? draws the dog fancier into the act is by making one liable for dam-i dam-i ages done by his dog regardless of whether the dog had a vicious : mature and regardless of whether ; the dog owner knew that his dog had such a nature. What his amounts am-ounts to is briefly this:: John Doe owns a dog (it can be any kind of a dog and have any kind of nature), na-ture), and for the moment let us assume the deg is the most gentle of canines, and that John Doe hasj never known, or had reason to! know, the dog to do anything but wag its tail and play gently with the children. One day John's dog. whose name is "Angel" (to fit nhis disposition) sees Jane Roe coming co-ming down the street on her way to the grocery store. Angel starts; out to meet Jane, waggins its tail: and romping playfilly by her side. As it has done many times before,! |
