Reddett v. Mosley
| Decision Date | 15 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 366 |
| Citation | 222 So.2d 369,45 Ala.App. 38 |
| Parties | Irby D. REDDETT v. Jimmy R. MOSLEY. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Pillans, Reams, Tappan, Wood & Roberts, Mobile, for appellant.
Moore, Moore, Downing & Layden, Mobile, for appellee.
Negligence for dog bite: verdict for plaintiff, $683.00. Defendant appealed.
Animals are divided (in tort law): ferae naturae and mansuetae naturae. Dogs fall into the latter class.
Hence, the law puts the burden of proving the owner's scienter on the person attacked by the dog. Otherwise, the owner of a dog would be under absolute liability as might be the keeper of a tiger or a cobra.
This rule is one of judicial notice and requires proof of the defendant's knowledge (actual or imputed) of the domestic animal's dangerous propensity as a sine qua non in the elements of the claimed negligence. Mason v. Keeling (1699), 12 Mod. 332, also reported in 1 Ld.Raym. 606.
No proof was made in the defendant's knowing of the dog manifesting a tendency to bite mankind. Owen v. Hampson, 258 Ala. 228, 62 So.2d 245(6).
The case ought not to have gone to the jury without such proof. Hence, the judgment below is due to be reversed and the cause there remanded for trial de novo.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phelps v. State
...and admissible, regardless of where it occurred, because it had a bearing on appellant's knowledge of the abuse. Cf. Reddett v. Mosley, 45 Ala.App. 38, 222 So.2d 369 (1969) (evidence to prove owner had knowledge of animal's vicious propensities); Atkins v. State, 60 Ala. 45 (1877) (evidence......
-
Allen By and Through Allen v. Whitehead
...258 Ala. 228, 62 So.2d 245 (1952), that the common law rule was still applicable in Alabama. The most recent case is Reddett v. Mosley, 45 Ala.App. 38, 222 So.2d 369 (1969), wherein the Court of Civil Appeals stated: "The rule is one of judicial notice and requires proof of the defendant's ......
-
White v. Law
...258 Ala. 228, 62 So.2d 245 (1952), that the common law rule was still applicable in Alabama. The most recent case is Reddett v. Mosley, 45 Ala.App. 38, 222 So.2d 369 (1969), wherein the Court of Civil Appeals stated: 'The rule is one of judicial notice and requires proof of the defendant's ......
-
Humphries v. Rice
...258 Ala. 228, 62 So.2d 245 (1952), that the common law rule was still applicable in Alabama. The most recent case is Reddett v. Mosley, 45 Ala.App. 38, 222 So.2d 369 (1969), wherein the Court of Civil Appeals stated: 'The rule is one of ... notice and requires proof of the defendant's knowl......
-
The Current State of Alabama Dog-bite Law: Breeding Confusion in the Law
...closing the door to the negligence cause of action seemingly provided by Durden. In 1969, the court of appeals in Reddett v. Mosley, 222 So. 2d 369 (Ala. App. 1969), reaffirmed the traditional position that proof of scienter can only be had "in the defendant's knowing of the dog manifesting......