Espinosa v. Hill
138 So. 2d 12, 1962 La. App. LEXIS 1608 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a domestic animal is liable for damages caused by the animal if the owner knew or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities. Once an injury occurs and a history of viciousness is shown, the burden of proof shifts to the owner to prove they were free from fault.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Hill owned a boxer dog named 'Friskey'.
- Prior to the main incident, Friskey approached Mrs. Espinosa, bared its teeth, jumped on her, and tore her cardigan sweater.
- On two other prior occasions, Friskey knocked down a neighbor's small child, and Mrs. Hill was aware of at least one of these incidents, remarking she thought the dog was just playing.
- On May 11, 1960, Mrs. Sylvia Espinosa was walking to a neighbor's home while carrying her one-year-old child, Anna.
- Friskey, who was unrestrained, approached Mrs. Espinosa, circled her, and growled in a menacing fashion.
- The dog then attacked, knocking Mrs. Espinosa to the ground as she attempted to shield her child.
- Friskey bit Mrs. Espinosa on her hip and thigh and caused several other bruises before repairmen intervened and scared the dog away.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Sylvia Espinosa and her husband sued the dog's owner, Mr. A. C. Hill, and his insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, in the District Court (trial court).
- After a trial on the merits, the District Court found in favor of the Espinosas and awarded damages.
- The defendants, Mr. Hill and Allstate, as appellants, perfected a suspensive appeal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the owner of a domestic dog liable for injuries it caused when prior incidents, which the owner dismissed as playful, should have put the owner on notice of the dog's vicious propensities?
Opinions:
Majority - Reid, J.
Yes. The owner of a domestic dog is liable for injuries it causes when prior incidents provided notice of the dog's vicious propensities, even if the owner subjectively misinterpreted those actions as harmless. Under Louisiana law, liability for an animal's tort is based on the owner's fault or negligence. While Article 2321 of the Civil Code appears to impose absolute liability, courts have interpreted it in conjunction with Articles 2315 and 2316 to require a showing of fault. This fault is established through the doctrine of 'scienter,' meaning the owner's knowledge of the animal's viciousness. In this case, Friskey's prior acts of jumping on Mrs. Espinosa and twice knocking down a small child were sufficient to put the Hills on notice, regardless of their belief that the dog was only 'playing.' The court found that the Hills 'should have known, if they did not,' that an attack was possible. Therefore, the burden of proof was on the Hills to show they were free from fault, and they failed to meet this burden.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'scienter' doctrine in Louisiana, establishing that an owner's subjective belief about their dog's intentions does not negate liability. The decision emphasizes an objective standard for notice; what a reasonable person would conclude from the dog's prior aggressive actions. By placing the burden of proof on the owner to demonstrate their freedom from fault, the ruling strengthens protections for victims of animal attacks and makes it more difficult for owners to escape liability by claiming ignorance or misinterpretation of their animal's behavior.
