Tort Case
Title and Citation
The case Hossenlopp Vs. Cannon was presented to the Supreme Court of South Carolina on January 23, 1985. Eric John Hossenlopp filed the lawsuit through his guardian John Hossenlopp. The respondents in the case were William J. Cannon, Jr., and Yong H. Cannon.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, Eric John Hossenlopp, brought the case to court after he got attacked by the dog owned by the defendants. The dog attack led to personal injuries of nineteen puncture wounds to the complainant requiring surgery, sutures, and hospitalization. This case is an example of tort law where “alleging negligence on the part of the owners in; keeping a dangerous animal with the knowledge it had dangerous propensities, allowing the dog to run at large in violation of statutory law, in failing to restrain the animal.”
The summary of the complaint indicated that on a fateful day, Hossenlopp was playing with another boy at a babysitter’s home. Then, Cannon’s dog chased them, and to avoid being attacked, they resorted to climbing a tree. However, the young Hossenlopp was not successful and was struck by the dog, which bit and dragged him by his ankle, causing the injuries. The argument in the court indicated that Cannon’s dog had caused injuries to Hossenlopp. However, there was an argument that the Cannons were not negligent.
Issues
There was a contested issue that Cannon’s dog had harmed other people on previous occasions. Mr and Mrs. Porter had indicated that the dog, which is believed to have attacked Hossenlopp has previously attacked and caused bruises on the buttocks of their grandson. Also, Willian J. Cannon acknowledged that the dog, on a previous occasion, had attacked a six-year-old boy leaving bruises on his arm. Therefore, the issue in the case was whether the owner of the dog knowingly allowed their dog to run at large off a property owned, rented, or controlled by them.
Holding
Th court supported the arguments of the plaintiff by stating the dog-bite law. Besides, the Laws of South Carolina of 1976 gives the injured party the right to seek damages from the owner of the dog when attacked or their child is attacked.
Rationale
The judges made their decision based on the current dog-bite law of the State of Carolina. The code indicates that the owner of the dog, which bites a person when they are rightfully in a place, is liable for the payments. Additionally, the law states that the owner of the dog shall compensate the affected person regardless of whether they had or had not known their dog to be vicious or whether or not they were negligent to their dog.
Analysis
This case is an example of a tort lawsuit where the complainant was seeking compensation from the accused. A tort case has four elements to be deemed successful. They include duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury (Best, Barnes, and Kahn-Fogel, 2018). Besides, the above case is a tort case due to negligence. The decision by the Supreme Court of South Carolina is appropriate since it requires the accused to compensate the plaintiff. The state’s dog-bite law indicates that it is unlawful for an owner of a domestic animal to willfully or negligently allow their animal to go beyond the limits of their land or place controlled by them. Therefore, the case was rightfully ruled under the code of Laws of South Carolina since the dog went beyond the limits of the owner with their knowledge.
References
Best, A., Barnes, D. W., & Kahn-Fogel, N. (2018). Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Hossenlopp v. Cannon, 285S.E.2d 367 (S.C. 1985).