Case Brief Baker v Snell
.docx
School
University of Dar es salaam**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
LEGAL LAW 201
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 21, 2024
Pages
1
Uploaded by MagistrateRaccoonPerson1194
Case Brief: Baker v Snell(1908)1.Heading:Baker v Snell, [1908] 2 K.B. 352 (Court of Appeal, England)2.Parties:Plaintiff: Baker; Defendant: Snell3.Procedural History:The case was heard in the Divisional Court and later appealed to the Court of Appeal, focusing on liability under the common law doctrine of scienter.4.Facts:The defendant owned a dog known to be dangerous. A third party maliciously unleashed the dog, which attacked and injured the plaintiff. The issue was whether the owner was liable for the dog's actions despite third-party intervention.5.Issue:Is the owner of a dangerous animal liable for harm caused when a third party unleashes the animal?6.Holding:Held – The defendant was liable, as third-party actions were foreseeable under the doctrine of scienter.7.Rule(s):Liability for dangerous animals arises when the owner has knowledge of the animal’s propensity to cause harm (scienterrule). Acts of a third party do not absolve liability if harm is foreseeable.8.Rationale:The court determined that keeping a dangerous animal creates a high duty of care. The owner's responsibility includes foreseeing and preventing third-party interference.9.Questions and Answers:oQ:Why does the act of a third party not absolve liability?A:Because the owner retains a duty to manage foreseeable risks associated with the animal.oQ:Could contributory negligence apply in this case?A:Likely not, as the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm.oQ:How does this case influence modern strict liability?A:It reinforces the principle that knowledge of danger mandates heightened care, influencing later statutory frameworks.For further details, you may consult academic discussions on common law liability for animals or refer to studylib.net.
