Question

The state in which Susan lives has a statute prohibiting dogs from running at large. All dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Susan's dog, while not on a leash, visits the home of a neighbor down the street. While there, the dog carries off an expensive pair of shoes belonging to Robert. The shoes are chewed and destroyed. A neighbor informed Robert of what had happened. Robert commented that he never should have left his $300 shoes lying on the deck in the first place but that he expects to be repaid by Susan. Robert found out that the dog had carried away a number of shoes and other articles in the neighborhood, chewing them to pieces. Susan had done nothing to warn anyone. Robert thinks that she should be punished for her activities, andperhaps that would deter her from allowing the dog to run loose. Which of the following theories will Susan likely use to defend herself?

A. Assumption of the risk.
B. Comparative negligence.
C. Res ipsa loquitur.
D. Negligence per se.
E. Res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se.

Answer 1

B.

Step-by-step explanation:

A comparative negligence can be defined as a form of partial legal defense. In this form of tort, the law requires both parties to pay a part of the contribution made in the accident. In this, the parties will be required to pay their share of other's damage caused. This states that both parties played a part in the negligence of an accident occurred.

In the given case, Susan can claim the theory of comparative negligence to defend herself. It is because the damage that occurred was not caused by Susan only but also Robert. Susan, though, violated the statute of not leashing her dog but at the same time, Robert was negligent of keep his expensive shoes lying on the deck.

So, the correct answer is option B.