Court of Appeals of The State of Fiction
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Court of Appeals of The State of Fiction
No. 00-00001
MARCIA HANSON,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN and RITA SMART,
Respondent.
ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE STATE OF FICTION FROM
THE FICTITIOUS TRIAL COURT
BRIEF OF PETITIONER
Some Lawyer
Attorney for Petitioner
4567 Any Lane
Anytown, Fiction 37214
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities …………………………………………………………. X
Statement of Jurisdiction …………………………………………………….. X
Statement of Issues …………………………………………………………… X
Statement of Facts ……………………………………………………………. X
Argument …………………………………………………………………….. X
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. X
Relief ………………………………………………………………………….. X
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Party A v. Party B, _ _ XX _ _ _ (Fict. 199_)
You v. Me, _ _ _ XX.2d _ _ (Fict. 197_)
Statutes
Fiction State Statute § XX-X-XXX
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Honorable Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Fiction Code Annotated § xx-x-xxx
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
DOES Fiction State Statute§ XX-X-XXX PROVIDE FOR A DISMISSAL BASED ON A
FIRST BITE DEFFENSE?
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On April 23, 2008, at approximately 4:00 AM, Marcia Hanson was delivering
newspapers for The Smalltown newspaper in Anytown, Fiction. As Ms. Hanson approached the
home of John & RITA SMART, their dog, a male pit bull named Spot, ran barking from the back
of the house and approached Ms. Hanson on the sidewalk. Spot then charged Ms. Hanson, biting
her on the right leg, ankle and foot. Mrs. SMART unsuccessfully attempted to call Spot off of
Ms. Hanson. Hearing the commotion, Mr. SMART came out of the house and commanded Spot
to “hold down,” at which time the dog immediately released Ms. Hanson’s foot and ran to Mr.
SMART. Mrs. SMART called 911 and within minutes the Anytown Fire Department and
paramedics arrived at the scene. They staunched the flow of blood from Ms. Hanson’s foot and
transported her to Smalltown Hospital where she was sedated and received 140 stitches in her
right leg, ankle and foot. She was given a tetanus shot and admitted for overnight observation.
Smalltown Police Department arrived at the scene where they took a report from Mr. &
Mrs. SMART, recorded Spot’s rabies number, and informed them that Spot would have to be
impounded for 10 days as required by county ordinance. The SMART’s informed the police that
they would take Spot to their veterinarian for the period of impoundment. The police attempted
to interview Ms. Hanson at the hospital, but she was heavily sedated and could not speak at the
time.
Trial was held in Fictitious Trial Court on December 19 th
, 2008, Honorable Judge Noble
Judge presiding. Judge Judge ruled that while Ms. Hanson was in fact bitten by Spot and was
required to have 140 stitches, the Defendant’s would not be held liable under the “first bite”
doctrine. The first bite rule exempts dog owners from liability for damages incurred if the dog
has not previously bitten anyone.
ARGUMENT
A DOG OWNER WHO IGNORES THE DUTY TO KEEP THE DOG UNDER
CONTROL IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT TRESPASSING.
Fiction State Statute§ XX-X-XXX – Injury caused by dogs; civil liability; exceptions; limitations
provides the following in part:
(1)(a) The owner of a dog has a duty to keep that dog under reasonable control at all
times, and to keep that dog from running at large. A person who breaches that duty is
subject to civil liability for any damages suffered by a person who is injured by the
dog while in a public place or lawfully in or on the private property of another.
(1)(b) The owner may be held liable regardless of whether the dog has shown any
dangerous propensities or whether the dog’s owner knew or should have known of the
dog’s dangerous propensities.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not impose liability upon the owner of the dog if:
(2) (b) The injured person was trespassing on the property of the dog’s owner.
Pursuant to the above, the owner of a dog has a duty to keep that dog under reasonable
control at all times. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. SMART had Spot under their control, as evidenced by
the fact that he was able to reach Ms. Hanson at the sidewalk before she had even crossed the
property line. If the dog was unleashed, it can be considered “at large.” Subsection (1)(b) also
clearly states that the owner will be held liable regardless of any dangerous propensities, known
or unknown, thus invalidating any first bite provisions.
Subsection 2 above relieves the owner of liability if the person was trespassing. Hanson was
delivering the paper at the request of the SMART’s as they subscribe to home delivery of the
paper. Hence, she was in no way trespassing.
The trial court, therefore, erred in dismissing Hanson’s claim and the SMART’s should be held
liable for damages.
In Party A v. Party B, _ _ XX _ _ _ (Fict. 199_) Party B lived in a rural community and allowed
his Doberman, Muffy, to run free each night between the hours of 1 and 2 am. Party A was
bitten by Muffy while walking down the road at 1:30 am after his vehicle had run out of fuel.
The Court awarded Party A damages, ruling that if the owner of a dog allowed the animal to run
at large, the dog owner was liable for damages resulting from the dog’s biting a person.
Allowing Spot out of the house without a leash constituted the dog’s “running at large” and the
SMART’s, therefore, are liable for Ms. Hanson’s damages.
In You v. Me, _ _ _ XX.2d _ _ (Fict. 197-) You was awarded damages when Me’s off-duty
police dog bit her while she was delivering a pizza to the Me household. The Court held that the
owner of a dangerous dog, kept on the owner’s property, owed guests the duty of ordinary care
while the guest was on the premises. Mr. and Mrs. SMART subscribed to The Smalltown
newspaper and knew that it was delivered early each morning, as it had been for nearly 3 years
prior to the incident. While Spot is not a trained police dog, he was known to occasionally lunge
and growl without provocation and the inherent dangerous nature of the breed should have
caused the SMART’s to be more cautious. On the morning in question, Spot did bite Ms.
Hanson causing her great bodily injury.
CONCLUSION
The trial court erred in dismissing Ms. Hanson’s claim for damages. The SMART’s are
liable for not keeping the animal under their control and allowing it to run at large which resulted
in harm to the Petitioner, Marcia Hanson.
Court of Appeals of The State of Fiction
Court of Appeals of The State of Fiction
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow