(Where you stand on the Issue)

Arthur Sison is liable for damages

Prosecutor (In favor) PETER Respondent (Against you) Arthur
When Arthur Sison decided to take a nap, he
shouldve 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 wouldnt 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 wouldve 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 Arthurs argument, the medication bill doesnt
cover the moral damages suffered by Mary
He already paid the bill for Marys medication
(Appeal to your readers 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 theres a sign on the gate,
the dog wouldve still attacked Mary because the dog itself was on the loose and the possessor of
such must be held liable for damages