Rex v Huggins - Case Note: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A famous case 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. | A famous case<re>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. | ||
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}} | |||
Revision as of 16:26, 4 November 2016
A famous case<re>Nothing in this case note is true, by the way.</ref> on the subject of a master’s liability for its beasts, 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 neighbours’ trousers.
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.