BUSINESS LAW

Apple was driving his car and suddenly it left the road and crashed through a very secure fence around Birchs home. Birch kept many pet dogs in his yard. There were pit-bulls and rottweilers along with smaller dogs, some pure bred, some mongrel. The impact of Apples car tore the fence and damaged the lawn and shrubs in Birchs yard.

The damage to the lawn was very superficial. Two or three heavy rains and all the grass will regrow and there will be no scar or marks from the damage. However, Apple also knocked over some shrubs which Birch replaced at a cost or $7,500.

While crossing the lawn Apples car hit and killed two dogs. One was a 12 year old mongrel that was a kennel rescue dog. Birchs children loved their pet and were extremely upset when it was killed. The other was a 6-month-old pure-bred pedigreed animal of breeding stock. It was registered and Birch had all the papers to prove it. Birch had purchased it from a kennel at a cost of $1,650.

One of the pit-bulls that escaped the yard was loose on the street and starting barking at a seven-year-old child playing in front of his home. Fear of the barking dog caused the child to run into the street. Cedar, who was driving at a safe and reasonable speed saw the child run into the street and swerved to avoid striking the child. Instead Cedars car hit a phone pole and knocked it over. Cedar who was properly wearing his seat belt was not injured but the cost to repair his car was $3,785.

A. Birch wants to be paid for the anguish and upset seeing his lawn damaged for 2-3 weeks until the grass grew back in and for the damage to his shrubs. Birch was asking for $1,500, the cost to replace the shrubs and $5,000 for the anguish and upset.

B. Birch wants to be paid $1,650 for each of the dogs and $10,000 for the anguish and upset he and his children had to deal with on loss of their pet.

C. Cedar is seeking to be paid by either Apple for causing Birchs dogs to run loose and chase the child into the street or Birch for keeping large vicious breeds of dogs on his property.

There were no witnesses who saw Apple crash into the yard. Apple asserted that he was driving at a safe and reasonable speed.

There is no indication of drugs or alcohol present. There is not record of any mechanical problems with Apples car. However, it is very clear that it was Apples car that crashed into the fence and yard. Apple is asserting that he should not be responsible for any of the damage because he was driving at a reasonable speed.

As to A and B: Is Birch entitled to any compensation from Apple on each of the claims?

As to C: Is Cedar entitled to any compensation from either Apple or Birch?

Can negligence be used in both cases? Why or why not?