Facts
Plaintiff sued Defendants for the value of his dog after they killed it while hunting wolves. Defendants admitted to killing Plaintiff’s dog, but argued that they were not liable because they did so out of a good faith belief that it was a wolf. The jury found them liable for the value of the dog.
Issue
Were Defendants entitled to relief from a jury verdict that they were liable for the value of the dog due to their good faith, mistaken belief that the dog was a wolf?
Held
No. The jury’s verdict was affirmed.
* When one damages another, he is liable for that damage, even if he would not have committed the act causing the damage but for a good faith but mistaken belief.
Discussion
This case focuses upon the intent relevant to liability. Defendants argued that they believed they were merely hunting a wolf, did not intend to kill anyone’s dog, and thus should not be held liable. The Court is unmoved by this argument, because the animal’s wolf status was not relevant to Defendants’ admitted intent to kill it, which is what caused the damages to Plaintiff.
No comments:
Post a Comment