Practice question
A dog maintained by a household escapes and injures a pedestrian. Damage and possession are proved; neither force majeure nor victim fault is established. The household proves careful feeding and invokes absence of personal negligence as automatic immunity. What is the statutory response?
- Article 2183 responsibility is not defeated by that showing alone
- Every careful possessor is automatically exempt
- Escape always extinguishes responsibility
- Only proof of a sale can create liability
- The pedestrian must prove a signed care contract
Legal references
- Civil Code, Articles 19-23, 26, 28, 31-33, 1314, 2177, 2183 and 2187: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74431, November 6, 1989, MAIN decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/nov1989/gr_74431_1989.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.