Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of a wilful act intended to cause him harm or done with reckless disregard.

FACTUAL SITUATION Tony, a Richman, had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near the dog. Further, a special handler was hired to take care of the dog. Visitors were warned by a prominent warning signboard about this dog.

One day, a 13 years old boy playing in the neighbourhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and kill him, Tony was sued for damages.

Options

• Tony was not liable because the boy was a trespasser

• Tony is not liable because a 13 years old boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog

• Tony is liable for the negligence of his servant to keep watch on such a ferocious dog during the day time

• Both (a) and (b)

Answer 1

Both (a) and (b)

Explanation:

The given legal principle clearly states that an occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of willful act… As per the factual situation, the boy was a trespasser and again a 13-year boy ought to have known about the dog from the warning signboard. Therefore both "Tony was not liable because the boy was trespasser" and "Tony is not liable because a 13 year old boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog" is the correct pick.