Arnold v. Laird

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding Commonwealth immune from dog-bite action brought under statute imposing liability without scienter
• applying rule set forth in § 518 of Restatement [Second], supra
• “[We have never held that] ... there cannot be both an action based upon negligence and one based upon common law “strict liability”
• it is not per se unreasonable to keep a dog in a fenced backyard if the animal has not exhibited dangerous tendencies
• it is not per se unreasonable to keep a dog in a fenced backyard if the animal has not exhibited dangerous tendencies
• calling for absolute liability with no defense of contributory negligence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).