Question

d's neighbor, h, keeps a venomous snake as a pet. d's child is bitten after teasing the snake with a stick. after being sued by d, h insurance company claimed that the child was acting negligently, and therefore, h was not liable. d's lawyer claimed that the pet was so dangerous that it did not relieve the owner of liability, an example of which principle?

Answer 1

The principle that the owner of a dangerous pet cannot be relieved of liability is known as strict liability principle. This principle holds the owner responsible for any harm caused by their dangerous pet, regardless of the owner's level of negligence.

Step-by-step explanation:

The principle that the owner of a dangerous pet cannot be relieved of liability due to the pet's dangerous nature is known as the strict liability principle. In this case, the neighbor's insurance company claimed that the child's actions were negligent and therefore the neighbor was not liable for the injury. However, d's lawyer argued that the pet's dangerousness was so high that it did not relieve the owner of liability. This is an example of the strict liability principle in tort law, which holds the owner responsible for any harm caused by their dangerous pet, regardless of the owner's level of negligence.