Like the victim in Hinman, Joanie Blake will prove that Charles Harvey is liable for the damages sustained by Blake, based on the “direct and immediate” behavior of Harvey’s dogs (Lewellin 62). The said behavior led directly to Blake incurring significant injuries. The liability Harvey faces is reinforced by the Minnesota Statute that states,
If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term “owner” includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable. The term “dog” includes both male and female …show more content…
In fact, Hinman never came into actual physical contact with the canine (Hinman 509). Hinman was an innocent bystander as the dog rushed past him in pursuit of another dog (Hinman 509). Despite the fact that the animal never touched Hinman, he perceived an immediate threat and twisted around (Hinman 509). This action was a natural instinct that was carried out in an effort to prevent harm, from what Hinman believed was an impending attack from the dog (Hinman 510). Every action that Hinman took was to prevent himself from being attacked. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no physical contact, the owner is liable for damages to Hinman (Hinman 509). Hinman’s safety was put in jeopardy; and as a result, he injured himself in the process of protecting his body from the canine (Hinman 510). The dog was the “direct and immediate” cause of Hinman’s injury (Hinman 509). Due to the immediate connection, there was no “attenuated chain of causation” (Hinman 509). This reasoning is enforced by the direct wording of the Statute, which states, “the statute applies to the hostile or nonhostile actions of a dog which cause injury, regardless of actual physical contact with the injured party (Hinman 511).” Therefore, the dog owner is liable for the injuries that Hinman incurred. The Court finds that this …show more content…
In Hinman, the dog rushes towards the victim, in the process of chasing another canine (Hinman 510). However, Hinman believed that the dog was about to attack him and he injured himself in his attempt to avoid being attacked (Hinman 510). The injuries Hinman suffered were a direct result of the dog’s behavior. This is similar to Blake, who was injured while riding a dogsled (Blake 1). The dogs noticed a possible wolf off towards the woods and immediately switched course to chase the wolf (Blake 2). Those actions resulted in Blake being thrown from the sled and sustaining injuries (Blake 2). As with Hinman’s injuries, Blake’s injuries were a direct cause of the dogs’ actions. These facts reinforce the “direct and immediate” part of the Minnesota Statute (Hinman 509). In addition, the victims did not provoke the dogs in any way to elicit such behavior. Due to the fact that the dog owners were found liable in the Hinman case, there is an established precedent for the Court deciding in favor of Blake. This is a directly related to the similarity that the facts present. The Court will probably find that the injuries Blake suffered were a “direct and immediate” cause of the dog’s behavior (Hinman 509). Thus, reasoning leads to the strong probability that the owner’s of the dogs in Blake will be held liable for the injuries
If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term “owner” includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable. The term “dog” includes both male and female …show more content…
In fact, Hinman never came into actual physical contact with the canine (Hinman 509). Hinman was an innocent bystander as the dog rushed past him in pursuit of another dog (Hinman 509). Despite the fact that the animal never touched Hinman, he perceived an immediate threat and twisted around (Hinman 509). This action was a natural instinct that was carried out in an effort to prevent harm, from what Hinman believed was an impending attack from the dog (Hinman 510). Every action that Hinman took was to prevent himself from being attacked. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no physical contact, the owner is liable for damages to Hinman (Hinman 509). Hinman’s safety was put in jeopardy; and as a result, he injured himself in the process of protecting his body from the canine (Hinman 510). The dog was the “direct and immediate” cause of Hinman’s injury (Hinman 509). Due to the immediate connection, there was no “attenuated chain of causation” (Hinman 509). This reasoning is enforced by the direct wording of the Statute, which states, “the statute applies to the hostile or nonhostile actions of a dog which cause injury, regardless of actual physical contact with the injured party (Hinman 511).” Therefore, the dog owner is liable for the injuries that Hinman incurred. The Court finds that this …show more content…
In Hinman, the dog rushes towards the victim, in the process of chasing another canine (Hinman 510). However, Hinman believed that the dog was about to attack him and he injured himself in his attempt to avoid being attacked (Hinman 510). The injuries Hinman suffered were a direct result of the dog’s behavior. This is similar to Blake, who was injured while riding a dogsled (Blake 1). The dogs noticed a possible wolf off towards the woods and immediately switched course to chase the wolf (Blake 2). Those actions resulted in Blake being thrown from the sled and sustaining injuries (Blake 2). As with Hinman’s injuries, Blake’s injuries were a direct cause of the dogs’ actions. These facts reinforce the “direct and immediate” part of the Minnesota Statute (Hinman 509). In addition, the victims did not provoke the dogs in any way to elicit such behavior. Due to the fact that the dog owners were found liable in the Hinman case, there is an established precedent for the Court deciding in favor of Blake. This is a directly related to the similarity that the facts present. The Court will probably find that the injuries Blake suffered were a “direct and immediate” cause of the dog’s behavior (Hinman 509). Thus, reasoning leads to the strong probability that the owner’s of the dogs in Blake will be held liable for the injuries