Practice question
A tame animal causes proved injury attributable to it. The defendant is its possessor, and no statutory exonerating cause is established. The defendant proves careful handling and argues that lack of negligence alone is decisive. What does Vestil explain?
- Every tame animal is categorically outside Article 2183.
- Prior careful handling automatically defeats the claim.
- Article 2183’s responsibility is not based on negligence or presumed lack of vigilance, so those facts alone do not supply the claimed defense.
- The possessor must first have intended the injury.
- Only the animal can be sued.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, articles 2183 and 2185.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/nov1989/gr_74431_1989.html — Vestil v Intermediate Appellate Court, GR 74431, November 6 1989, main opinion: animal possession, no negligence basis, and causation.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7394_1992.html — RA 7394, article97: defective-product liability independently of fault and specified defenses.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.