Question

A 16-year-old teenager was playing baseball in a sandlot when the ball was hit over his head and into a landowner’s adjacent property. Ignoring “beware of dog” signs, the teenager climbed over the fence into the landowner’s yard to retrieve the ball and was attacked by a vicious guard dog belonging to the landowner. The dog bit the teenager, causing him to suffer severe lacerations that required numerous stitches.
If the teenager brings an action against the landowner to recover damages for his injuries, will he likely prevail?

A. Yes, because the landowner may not use a vicious dog to protect only his property.
B. Yes, because the landowner is strictly liable for injuries caused by the vicious dog.
C. No, because the teenager was trespassing on the landowner's property.
D. No, because the landowner had posted signs warning about the dog.

Answer 1

Answer:

C, no because he was trespassing

Explanation:

The teenager was trespassing on somebody else's property and his action will not prevail in court. The general rule is : if somebody is trespassing on your property, you are not responsible for any injury occurring there.

Dog owners must prove that the victim of the attack was illegally on the property to avoid liability.

A 'Beware of the dog' sign does not remove liability from the dog's owner, it is only a warning.

The teenager was trespassing and the landowner is therefor not liable for his injuries.