Prosecutor (In favor) PETER Respondent (Against you) Arthur
When Arthur Sison decided to take a nap, he should’ve closed his store for a while or at least to put the dog on a secured cage. In this case, he was negligent in maintaining his premises safe for his customers Mary Banag, yielded the gate of Arthur Sison which led the dog to attack her According to SC, a child under nine years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law There was a sign at the gate warning about the presence of the dog implying that if Mary took precaution, the attack wouldn’t happen The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. (Art. 2183 of CC) Even if Mary was accompanied by an adult, the dog would’ve attacked her still, for the reason that it was not on a leash or a secured cage She was not accompanied by an adult, impliedly putting the blame to her parents for letting her roam outside unattended being exposed to danger Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. (Art. 2176 of CC) In Arthur’s argument, the medication bill doesn’t cover the moral damages suffered by Mary He already paid the bill for Mary’s medication (Appeal to your reader’s good sense) In the doctrine of the wild beast theory, it is said to be an absolute liability. Thus, the defense of defendant for taking all possible precaution is ineffective. And even though there’s a sign on the gate, the dog would’ve still attacked Mary because the dog itself was on the loose and the possessor of such must be held liable for damages