Practice question
A possessor argues that a normally tame dog cannot fall within Article 2183 after it bites a visitor. Is ordinary tameness alone a complete defense?
- Yes, the victim must have bought the dog
- Yes, the rule applies only to wild animals
- Yes, a tame animal can never injure
- Yes, possession is irrelevant
- No
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.