Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

OFFICE LEGAL MEMORANDUM

Atty. Khamiya Espinosa Sison : TO


Paralegal SSS : FROM
January 12, 2017 : DATE
Liability of the Dog Owner : RE

Statements of Assignment .I
This legal memorandum provides the case of Peter Banaag he father of a child who
was attacked by a neighbor’s dog, Arthur Sison has come to consult the firm about the
possibility of his bringing a lawsuit against Arthur Sison.

Issue(s) .II
A. Whether or not Arthur Sison is liable under Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission
causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done even though he brought Mary to the Hospital?

Brief Answer .III


Yes, Arthur Sison is still liable to the damage caused by his dog. However with .A
the foregoing circumstance, as the owner of the dog, he immediately brought Mary to the
hospital to have medical assistance. Through this, the liability of Arthur will mitigate
instead of being an aggravating offense to the Family of the victim.
.B

Statement of Facts .IV

Fred Puzon is 21 years old gentlemen and working. He lives at 24 Annapolis St.,
Cubao, Quezon City. He saw the dog bite Mary’s leg and even her arms as she fell to the
ground. The dog belonged to Arthur Sison. He immediately ran to help her but
unfortunately he tripped on the gutter and fell on his hands and knees. He recovered and
quickly kicked the dog away then stood by to protect Mary from further attacks. Arthur
came out of his house and sent his dog into his yard. As for Mary, Arthur picked her up,
called a tricycle, and brought her to a nearby clinic for treatment. According to Fred, Mary
was near Arthur’s house because she went there to buy ice candies which Arthur had been
selling for some time. From where he stood, he saw Mary approached Arthur’s gate and
knock on it, she kept on knocking softly at the gate. A young girl of her age passed by and
Mary waived at her. Arthur’s dog then came out to the yard as Mary tested the gate by
pushing it, the gate yielded and the dog jumped out. Mary held the gate open and called in
saying she wanted to buy ice candy. That was the time Fred saw the dog go after her from
behind as she turned and ran to leave. Mary was bitten.
Analysis .V

Issue: Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre -
existing contractual relation between the parties. In order to prove negligence, the burden of
proof lies with the complainant. In order to win a lawsuit based on negligence, the injured
person must prove that:
• the owner had a duty to take reasonable care to control the dog's behavior
• the owner was negligent by failing to meet that duty, and
• that negligence directly (or “proximately”) caused the injured person’s harm.
As researched, A dog owner may be liable in a civil lawsuit for a bite or another
used by the animal if one (or more) of the following is true: kind of injury ca
The victim can prove that the injury happened because the dog owner was negligent
(legalese for unreasonably careless)—for instance, by violating a local leash law or leaving a
gate open and allowing the dog to run out and bite the mail carrier. A dog-bite statute applies.
Many states have “strict liability dog-bite laws that make owners financially responsible for
dog bites (and other injuries in some states), regardless of any carelessness or the dog’s
history. The victim can prove that the owner knew the dog had a tendency to cause that kind
of injury. In states without dog-bite laws, dog owners may be liable under a principle known
as the “one-bite rule,” which makes dog owners liable for injuries if they knew or should’ve
known that their dogs were likely to hurt someone.

Application to the facts of the case


In the case at bar, it shows that the petitioner Peter whom is the father of the victim
Mary should be given/assisted for the medical needs of his child because of the Dog of
Mr. Sison. The owner of the dog is liable because it shows that he has not taken his duty
and responsibility to his dog.

Conclusion
Article 2176 of the Civil applies to Peter and Mary’s case because it is clear that Mr.
Sison is negligent in taking care and protecting his dog and the people from harm
knowing that dogs really bite to those who are new to them.

Recommendation
To cast away even a little the grieve of Mr. Peter. He can file for damages for Mr.
Sison, he should shoulder all the expenses of the medication of Mary and all her would
be expenses during the healing process of the child. Mr. Peter and Mary have a legal
standing because Mr. Sison was negligent.