Dawson v Hanson et al

There have been three main occasions when Mr. Hanson was to deliver the mail and Archie lunged at him, barked and growled, while he put the mail in the mail slot. From this day onwards, Mrs. Hanson, Archie’s owner decided to keep the dog in the backyard during the time of delivery of the mail in order to keep the dog from lunging at Mr. Dawson. Brock Mason failed to reply to a written complaint made by Mr. William’s regarding the dog’s atrocious behaviour and need to bark and growl at him all the time even though he never stepped onto the property rented by Mrs. Hanson. However, upon entering the very house of Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Dawson was bitten by her dog, Archie on the 15th of August, 2009. The dog lunged because it was able to escape from the backyard due to the negligence of Mrs. Hanson’s son, Joshua Hanson, not having been able to close the door properly in order to prevent the dog from escaping, despite knowing that it was ferocious and had a habit of growling at the neighbours and anyone else who happened to chance upon the property. Mrs. Hanson came forward and tried to get the dog to let go but her son was forced to switch on the hose pipe and finally make the dog leave Mr. Dawson’s leg. The main witness that noticed the entire injury take place was Ms LaVerne Coles. The paramedics were immediately called by her, and Mr. Dawson was rushed to the hospital arriving upon which he received 33 stitches as well as proper follow up care from Dr Jackson Ellis. Dr. Ellis further asked him to visit Dr Ivan Gomez for checking his torn rotator which had suffered damages during the fall when the dog bit him. Mr. Dawson was also made to attend a physical therapy session for the next eight weeks following the accident. Not only did the entire episode cost Mr. Dawson a heavy amount to recover fully from the damages and injuries caused by the dog, but the entire process also caused Mr. Dawson to reduce his earnings due to a pay cut from $55,700 to $53,500 on an annual basis. Law and Argument: In California statutes, ordinances and case law address the regulation of dogs and their owners, and the bases for compensation in the case of injury. For example, in cases involving certain types of dogs, i.e., dangerous dogs (dogs with a dangerous propensity or vicious propensity) the owner of the dog may be liable for injury, without regard to fault (strict liability). In other situations, owners, landlords or other persons who keep or harbor dangerous dogs may be liable when the dogs attack. The facts of each case will often determine the outcome of that particular case. California is a strict liability state, meaning that a dog owner is liable for injuries inflicted by his dog upon a human being, even if the owner was not negligent and the dog had never bitten anyone before. California is one of the states that has a dog bite statute, meaning a law that repudiates in whole or part the common law’s requirement of scienter (i.e., knowledge that the animal had previously injured a person in the same manner, such as by a bite). California Civil Code section 3342 provides as follows: 3342. (a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of