Rex v Huggins - Case Note: Difference between revisions

Rex v Huggins - Case Note (view source)

422 bytes added , 4 November 2016

no edit summary

83,530

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-A famous case on the subject of a master’s liability for its beasts, in this case Rex, an incontinent beagle — a [[mansuetae naturae]] with no known history of urinating on his master’s [[neighbour]]s’ trousers.
+A famous case<ref>Nothing in this case note is true, by the way.</ref> on the subject of a [[master]]’s liability for its [[beast]]s, in this case Rex, an elderly beagle with a bladder infection — an [[animal]] ''[[mansuetae naturae]]'' — by its nature [[tame]] — with no known history despoiling a [[neighbour]]s’ trousers.
-Nothing in this case note is true, by the way.
+To recover the dry-cleaning bill, Mr. Huggins joined Rex  to the action.
+The action failed: as Rex was a [[mansuetae naturae]] and his [[master]] had no [[constructive knowledge]] of his bladder condition, the action ''in [[scienter]]'' must be declined . ''Obiter'': Had Rex been a [[tiger]], or a [[scots terrier]], it might have succeeded.
+{{ref}}