MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Margie Smith v. Susan Jones Issue Whether Susan Jones is liable for the injuries to Chloe Smith caused by Kitty Galore. Issue Brief answers

Facts Chloe Smith is a typical four year old child who likes to explore and doesn't always listen to her mother. On August 25, Margie and Chloe went to visit an old friend, Susan Jones, at Ms. Jones house in Greensboro, North Carolina. Soon after arriving, a noticeable scratching and meowing sound came from behind a closed door down the hallway from where everyone was sitting in the family room. Ms. Jones stated that the sound was from her cat, Kitty Galore, and that she had locked the cat in the back bedroom because it wasn't always friendly with visitors. After drinking too much lemonade, Chloe had to go to the bathroom, and asked Ms. Jones where she would find it. Ms. Jones stated that it was down the hallway, and Chloe proceeded to the bathroom unsupervised. After going to the bathroom, Chloe heard the cat again, and being an animal lover and a curious child, she decided to open the door to take a look at the cute little cat. Much to her surprise, when she opened the door, she was viciously attacked by a large cat. Chloe had cuts and scratches on her face, arms, hands, and abdomen that required hundreds of stitches and extensive plastic surgery. Ms. Smith later discovered that Kitty Galore was in fact a rare hybrid cat called a Savannah, a mix between a domestic and wild cat. Analysis Negligence Under North Carolina law, the elements of a negligence claim are (1) the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. See, e.g., Doe v. University of North Carolina, 778 S.E.2d 554, 561 (N.C. Ct. App 2015). In the instant case, it is clear that Susan Jones owed a duty of care to Chloe Smith. The Restatement (Second) of Torts provides that a landowner owes a duty of care to those who are lawfully on the premises. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 324 (1965). Chloe Smith was lawfully on the premises of Susan Jones, and therefore, Susan Jones owed a duty of care to Chloe Smith. It is also clear that Susan Jones breached her duty of care to Chloe Smith. Susan Jones knew or should have known that Kitty Galore was a dangerous animal, yet she failed to take reasonable precautions to protect Chloe Smith from Kitty Galore. By failing to take reasonable precautions, Susan Jones breached her duty of care to Chloe Smith. The causation element is also satisfied in this case. Susan Jones' breach of her duty of care was the proximate cause of Chloe Smith's injuries. If Susan Jones had taken reasonable precautions to protect Chloe Smith from Kitty Galore, Chloe Smith would not have been injured. Finally, the damages element is also satisfied. Chloe Smith suffered injuries as a result of the attack by Kitty Galore, and those injuries are compensable under North Carolina law. Strict Liability Under North Carolina law, the elements of a strict liability claim are (1) the keeping of an abnormally dangerous animal, (2) the knowledge or experience of the keeper that the animal was dangerous, and (3) causation. See, e.g., Doe, 778 S.E.2d at 562. In the instant case, it is clear that Susan Jones kept an abnormally dangerous animal. A Savannah is a hybrid of a domestic cat and a wild cat, and therefore, it is an abnormally dangerous animal. It is also clear that Susan Jones knew or have known that Kitty Galore was an abnormally dangerous animal. A reasonable person in Susan Jones' position would have known that a Savannah is a hybrid of a domestic catand a wild cat, and therefore, it is an abnormally dangerous animal. Finally, the causation element is also satisfied. Susan Jones' keeping of an abnormally dangerous animal was the proximate cause of Chloe Smith's injuries. If Susan Jones had not kept Kitty Galore, Chloe Smith would not have been injured. B. Are there any defences available that would bar plaintiff's recovery? Contributory Negligence Assumption of Risk Under North Carolina law, the defence of assumption of risk is available when the plaintiff voluntarily assumes the risk of his or her injuries. See, e.g., Doe, 778 S.E.2d at 561. In the instant case, Chloe Smith's assumption of the risk of her injuries may bar her recovery. Chloe Smith knew or should have known that Kitty Galore was a dangerous animal, yet she voluntarily decided to open the door to the room where Kitty Galore was kept. By voluntarily opening the door, Chloe Smith assumed the risk of her injuries. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, I believe that Susan Jones is liable for the injuries to Chloe Smith caused by Kitty Galore. I also believe that there are defences available that would bar plaintiff's recovery.

The assignment is almost done, I only need one more issue and after the issue #2, a brief answer

I need an analysis

I need a contributory negligenc I need a contributory negligence and more information in the conclusion one more and last thing is the citation, it has to be in the bluebook format