Rex v Huggins - Case Note: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
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.
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.


To recover the dry-cleaning bill, Mr. Huggins joined Rex  to the action.  
To recover the dry-cleaning bill, Mr. Huggins joined Rex  to the action.  

Latest revision as of 16:26, 4 November 2016

A famous case[1] 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.

References

  1. ↑ Nothing in this case note is true, by the way.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Rex_v_Huggins_-_Case_Note&oldid=13798"