Louisana Dog Bite Law

TITLE V.  OBLIGATIONS ARISING WITHOUT AGREEMENT

o:p> 

CHAPTER 3.  OF OFFENSES AND QUASI OFFENSES

Art. 2321 Damage caused by animals

   The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage caused by the animal. However, he is answerable for the damage only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that his animal's behavior would cause damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care. Nonetheless, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person's provocation of the dog. Nothing in this Article shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case. 

LexisNexis (TM) Notes: CASE NOTES TREATISES AND ANALYTICAL MATERIALS LAW REVIEWS

CASE NOTES

Civil Procedure : Trials : Judgment as Matter of Law

Civil Procedure : Relief From Judgment : Motions for New Trial

Evidence : Procedural Considerations : Burdens of Proof

Evidence : Procedural Considerations : Inferences & Presumptions

Evidence : Relevance : Character Evidence

Governments : Legislation : Interpretation

Governments : Legislation : Types of Statutes

Torts : Causation : Proximate Cause

Torts : Damages

Torts : Damages : Damages Generally

Torts : Damages : Compensatory Damages

Torts : Multiple Defendants : Apportionment of Damages

Torts : Negligence : Negligence Generally

Torts : Negligence : Defenses : Assumption of Risk

Torts : Negligence : Defenses : Comparative & Contributory Negligence

Torts : Negligence : Duty : Duty Generally

Torts : Negligence : Duty : Animal Owners

Torts : Negligence : Proof of Negligence

Torts : Negligence : Proof of Negligence : Res Ipsa Loquitur

Torts : Real Property Torts : General Premises Liability

Torts : Real Property Torts : Landlord-Tenant Liabilities

Torts : Real Property Torts : Trespass

Torts : Strict Liability : Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Torts : Strict Liability : Injuries Caused by Animals

Civil Procedure : Trials : Judgment as Matter of Law

1. In a horsewoman's tort suit under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 against her uncle for injuries she suffered when a horse, which she had arranged for her uncle to buy, threw her, motions under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1811 for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively, under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. arts. 1972 and 1973 for a new trial, were properly denied. Smith v. American Indem. Ins. Co., 598 So. 2d 486, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 997 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992).

Civil Procedure : Relief From Judgment : Motions for New Trial

2. In a horsewoman's tort suit under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 against her uncle for injuries she suffered when a horse, which she had arranged for her uncle to buy, threw her, motions under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1811 for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively, under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. arts. 1972 and 1973 for a new trial, were properly denied. Smith v. American Indem. Ins. Co., 598 So. 2d 486, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 997 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992).

Evidence : Procedural Considerations : Burdens of Proof

3. Although a cow owner took reasonable and prudent steps to maintain her fences in good condition, she had the burden of proving how a cow escaped from her property onto a highway where it caused an accident, and, by failing to sustain that burden, under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §  3:2803 and La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 she was liable for personal injuries suffered by an automobile driver and several adult and minor passengers. Womack v. Rhymes, 300 So. 2d 226, 1974 La. App. LEXIS 3182 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1974).

Evidence : Procedural Considerations : Inferences & Presumptions

4. Where a nine-year-old boy had been told not to enter a back yard, he was old enough to be required to obey that instruction, and dog owners had satisfied the legal obligation imposed upon them by La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 by keeping their dogs secured and permitting no one to enter their yard without the presence of their son; they met their burden of proof that their dog's bite was caused by the fault of the boy himself by proceeding into the yard contrary to the owners' instructions. Dotson v. Continental Ins. Co., 322 So. 2d 284, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 3987 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1975).

Evidence : Relevance : Character Evidence

5. In a horsewoman's tort suit under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321, against her uncle for injuries she suffered when a horse, which she had arranged for her uncle to buy, threw her, the exclusion of character evidence under La. Code Evid. Ann. art. 404 did not apply; under art. 2321 there had to be a showing that the horse posed an unreasonable risk of harm which could not be determined without examining the behavior of the animal. Smith v. American Indem. Ins. Co., 598 So. 2d 486, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 997 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992).

Governments : Legislation : Interpretation

6. Provocation under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 could be imputed to animals as well as to people, and where the uncontroverted evidence showed that plaintiffs' small dog charged defendants' larger dogs as if to attack them, and that this provoked the larger dogs to attack plaintiff's dog, defendants were not liable for plaintiffs' veterinarian bill. Mccoy v. Lucius, La. App. 36894, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 536 (La.App. 2 Cir. Mar. 5 2003).

7. There was no dispute that the dogs kept by defendants caused the damage to plaintiffs' dog; the two remaining elements of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 were whether the owner was able to prevent the damage, but failed to do so, and whether defendants' dogs were provoked. Mccoy v. Lucius, La. App. 36894, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 536 (La.App. 2 Cir. Mar. 5 2003).

Governments : Legislation : Types of Statutes

8. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 is a negligence statute rather than a strict liability statute. Harris v. Roy, 108 So. 2d 7, 1958 La. App. LEXIS 700 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1958).

Torts : Causation : Proximate Cause

9. Where an oncoming auto in a supermarket parking lot startled the plaintiff and caused her to step onto a defective drainage area and fall, the driver of the auto was not an intervening actor, since the oncoming auto was not an extraordinary event; it may have been a concurrent cause, but Louisiana jurisprudence required the third person to be the sole cause of the damage. Ruffo v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 424 So. 2d 470, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 8708 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1982).

10. Cattle owner negligently failed to maintain a fence enclosing his livestock, which broke through a weak spot and trampled a sweet potato field, but the farmers failed to prove pecuniary loss because the crop had been ruined by excess rainfall. Harris v. Roy, 108 So. 2d 7, 1958 La. App. LEXIS 700 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1958).

Torts : Damages

11. Despite the declaration of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 that the owner of an animal is answerable for the damage he has done, the owner of a cow was not that was struck by a car was not responsible for the car's damages because the cow had escaped from an enclosure only in consequence of the negligence of another driver who had just damaged the enclosure. Ansardi v. Potter, 71 So. 2d 347, 1954 La. App. LEXIS 632 (La.App., Orleans 1954).

Torts : Damages : Damages Generally

12. Provocation under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 could be imputed to animals as well as to people, and where the uncontroverted evidence showed that plaintiffs' small dog charged defendants' larger dogs as if to attack them, and that this provoked the larger dogs to attack plaintiff's dog, defendants were not liable for plaintiffs' veterinarian bill. Mccoy v. Lucius, La. App. 36894, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 536 (La.App. 2 Cir. Mar. 5 2003).

13. Imposing the burden of proof upon the owner of an animal to exculpate himself from "even the slightest degree of negligence" is the interpretation that Louisiana Courts of Appeal consistently apply in "stock law" cases; however, where a driver hit a farmer's cow on a clear day, and the evidence showed the driver was checking the tape player, the driver was 75 percent at fault, but was entitled to general damages, medical expenses, and property damages, subject to a reduction for the driver's percentage of fault. Buller v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Cos., La. App. 2002-820, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 197 (La.App. 3 Cir. Feb. 5 2003).

Torts : Damages : Compensatory Damages

14. Cattle owner negligently failed to maintain a fence enclosing his livestock, which broke through a weak spot and trampled a sweet potato field, but the farmers failed to prove pecuniary loss because the crop had been ruined by excess rainfall. Harris v. Roy, 108 So. 2d 7, 1958 La. App. LEXIS 700 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1958).

Torts : Multiple Defendants : Apportionment of Damages

15. In the employee's personal injury action against the employer, a lessor, and a lessee, the trial court did not err under La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2317, 2321, and 2322 in failing to allow the allocation of third-party fault against the manufacturer of the menu board that injured the employee. Myers v. Burger King Corp., La. App. 92-0400, 638 So. 2d 369, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 1581 (La.App. 4 Cir. May 26 1994).

Torts : Negligence : Negligence Generally

16. Imposing the burden of proof upon the owner of an animal to exculpate himself from "even the slightest degree of negligence" is the interpretation that Louisiana Courts of Appeal consistently apply in "stock law" cases; however, where a driver hit a farmer's cow on a clear day, and the evidence showed the driver was checking the tape player, the driver was 75 percent at fault, but was entitled to general damages, medical expenses, and property damages, subject to a reduction for the driver's percentage of fault. Buller v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Cos., La. App. 2002-820, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 197 (La.App. 3 Cir. Feb. 5 2003).

17. In father's suit under La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2315 and 2316 against store and escalator manufacturer due to child's injuries from sticking a hand into the moveable parts of store's escalator, strict liaibility was not imposed; La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321, imposing strict liability for damages caused by an animal, was only an exception to the basic rule that plaintiffs must prove negligence in order to recover. Norberg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 321 So. 2d 795, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 3212 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1975).

18. Animal owner was liable for damages under La. Code Civ. Ann. art. 2321 and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §  3:2803 where the evidence as to the adequacy of his fences and generally reasonable precautions did not overcome the presumption of negligence when his cow ran out onto a highway and caused an accident with a vehicle driver. Quarles v. Tolar, 312 So. 2d 350, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 3094 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1975).

19. Where a store owner gave no adequate warning to a customer of its vicious dog on the premises and who posted no sign prohibiting the public from entering the area where the dog was kept, under La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2321, 2315, and 2316, the owner was liable for injuries the dog inflicted on the customer. Cavallino v. Craft Motor Co., 244 So. 2d 333, 1971 La. App. LEXIS 6457 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1971).

20. Because a farmer failed to prove that he was free from any negligence and failed to maintain proper fencing, the trial court erred by rejecting car owner's demands in a negligence action involving a collision between a car and a horse. Liner v. McEnery, 176 So. 2d 786, 1965 La. App. LEXIS 4204 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1965).

21. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 would impose an absolute liability upon the owner of an animal, irrespective of the existence of any ordinance, but art. 2321 is subject to the negligence or fault requirements of La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2315 and 2316; thus, although art. 2321 declares, unqualifiedly, that the owner of an animal is answerable for the damage the animal has done, the interpretation, which has been put upon art. 2321, consistently, is that the owner of an animal is liable for damages done by the animal only in cases where the owner was guilty of some fault or negligence in his ownership or possession of the animal. Raziano v. T. J. James & Co., 57 So. 2d 251, 1952 La. App. LEXIS 490 (La.App., Orleans 1952).

Torts : Negligence : Defenses : Assumption of Risk

22. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2317 and La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 are based on neither negligence nor fault, but from the obligations arising from custody and ownership; the defenses to such cases are: (1) fault of the victim; (2) fault of a third person; and (3) irresistible force. Goutierrez v. R & J Quarterhorse Stables, 509 So. 2d 551, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9293 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1987).

23. Assumption of risk and contributory negligence were common law defenses to negligence actions, while La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2317 was based on neither negligence nor fault, but on the obligations arising from custody and ownership; the causation defenses applicable to cases under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2317 were: (1) fault of the victim, (2) fault of a third person, and (3) irresistible force. Rozell v. La. Animal Breeders Coop., 496 So. 2d 275, 1986 La. LEXIS 7480 (La. 1986).

24. Worker assumed the risk of injury when he entered a bullpen alone that employees had been told not to enter, thus his recovery for personal injuries sustained was barred and his suit for damages was dismissed. Rozell v. La. Animal Breeders Coop., Inc., 486 So. 2d 968, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 6487 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1986).

25. A landowner was not entitled to damages when struck by a stray bull penned on his property, as the presumption of strict liability imposed on the bull's owner by La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 was overridden when the landowner voluntarily and knowingly placed himself in a dangerous location after employees of the owner, who were sent to retrieve the bull, warned the owner not to go into the pen or help load the bull into their trailer. Dufrene v. Fournier, 420 So. 2d 1178, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 8224 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1982).

26. Fault of the victim was a defense to strict liability under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321; thus, the employee could not bring an action in tort against her employer or the owner of the horse from which she was thrown because the employee assumed the risk of injury when she exercised the horse. Roberts v. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co., 394 So. 2d 696, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 3517 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1981).

27. Horse owner was not strictly liable under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 for injuries suffered by a rider in a horseback riding accident; the owner was exculpated from fault and liability by the fault of the rider who assumed the risk of horseback riding when she voluntarily participated in a trail ride involving other horses and riders. Daniel v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 810, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3729, 6 A.L.R.4th 349 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1979).

Torts : Negligence : Defenses : Comparative & Contributory Negligence

28. Where the owner's dog was kept in a fenced yard, his gate was reinforced with an iron bar, the neighbor entered the owner's yard to retrieve his son's football, and the owner's dog bit the neighbor, a judgment which allocated 25 percent of the fault to the neighbor and 75 percent of the fault to the owner was affirmed because (1) the owner was strictly liable for the dog bites under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 and the owner failed to prove that the neighbor actually provoked the dog, (2) the allocation of fault between the parties was proper because the neighbor could have waited to retrieve the football until the owner was home, (3) the neighbor's status as a trespasser was irrelevant to the strict liability imposed on a dog owner, and (4) the owner knew of the dog's propensity to bite. Pepper v. Triplet, La. App. 2002-0022, 834 So. 2d 624, 2002 La. App. LEXIS 3972 (La.App. 1 Cir. Dec. 20 2002).

29. Owner and trainer of a racehorse were liable for the damage done to an automobile by a racehorse that was spooked and ran away even though the automobile was parked in a fire zone where attended horses might pass; the runaway racehorse was an unreasonable risk of harm to anyone whose automobile was in his path no matter where it was parked. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Simon, 598 So. 2d 1255, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 1250 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1992).

30. Dog bite victim was 100 percent at fault in entering a fenced yard before the dog was chained, despite the owner's warnings. Hayes v. McFarland, 535 So. 2d 568, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2750 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1988).

31. Jury properly held that the owners of a dog were strictly liable under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 for the dog's attack on an 11-year-old child, but the child's damages were reduced by 50 percent pursuant to La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2323 because she was at fault for negligently walking into the dog owners' backyard. Howard v. Allstate Ins. Co., 510 So. 2d 685, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9565 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1987).

32. Dog owner was not liable to a woman who knocked at his residence door, startling his dog who was just inside into lunging out the door and biting the victim, because the victim's non-negligent fault mitigated the owner's strict statutory liability. Parker v. Hanks, 345 So. 2d 194, 1977 La. App. LEXIS 5047 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1977).

Torts : Negligence : Duty : Duty Generally

33. Dog owner was not liable, under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321, where his dog entered a neighbor's home and the neighbor injured herself while trying to remove the dog; the neighbor voluntarily exposed herself to the danger of tripping over the dog. Thompson v. Sicard, 385 So. 2d 334, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 3920 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1980).

34. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321, which makes the owner of an animal answerable for the damage it causes, is not a codal state-wide stock law, and is not the only statute applicable to cases involving motorists and cattle collisions on the highway; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §  3:2803, which prohibits allowing livestock to go at large on certain public highways, is a special statute to control this situation, and it is not within the province of a court to repeal an express, clear, and explicit statute. Flores v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 337 So. 2d 264, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3989 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1976).

Torts : Negligence : Duty : Animal Owners

35. Imposing the burden of proof upon the owner of an animal to exculpate himself from "even the slightest degree of negligence" is the interpretation that Louisiana Courts of Appeal consistently apply in "stock law" cases; however, where a driver hit a farmer's cow on a clear day, and the evidence showed the driver was checking the tape player, the driver was 75 percent at fault, but was entitled to general damages, medical expenses, and property damages, subject to a reduction for the driver's percentage of fault. Buller v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Cos., La. App. 2002-820, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 197 (La.App. 3 Cir. Feb. 5 2003).

36. Race horse did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to a veterinarian's assistant during a tubing procedure because the assistant was experienced in dealing with race horses and the particular race horse was known to be gentle and well behaved. Bowen v. Skillman, La. App. 28217, 671 So. 2d 1216, 1996 La. App. LEXIS 581 (La.App. 2 Cir. Apr. 3 1996).

37. A dog owner was not liable for the injuries a child sustained when she ran into a street after she was frightened by the owner's dogs, which were not vicious and did not chase her; the child reacted unreasonably to the barking dogs after she was told they were not dangerous. Marchand v. York, 624 So. 2d 440, 1993 La. App. LEXIS 2827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993).

38. Where a horse owner entrusted the daily care of his horse to his caretaker and the caretaker gave a rider express permission to take the horse out, the owner was liable for all damages that resulted from a collision between the horse and car after the horse was spooked and ran wildly into the path of the oncoming car. Dotson v. Matthews, 480 So. 2d 860, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 10592, 49 A.L.R.4th 639 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1985).

39. Dog owner was not liable, under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321, where his dog entered a neighbor's home and the neighbor injured herself while trying to remove the dog; the neighbor voluntarily exposed herself to the danger of tripping over the dog. Thompson v. Sicard, 385 So. 2d 334, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 3920 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1980).

40. Injured parties could not recover against a cattle owner where they failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the ownership of a cow they hit on a highway which was required to recover under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321. Stutts v. Lyles, 332 So. 2d 917, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3671 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1976).

41. The fault provided in La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 is in the nature of strict liability, as an exception to or in addition to any ground of recovery on the basis of negligence, La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2316. Dotson v. Continental Ins. Co., 322 So. 2d 284, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 3987 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1975).

42. Animal owner was liable for damages under La. Code Civ. Ann. art. 2321 and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §  3:2803 where the evidence as to the adequacy of his fences and generally reasonable precautions did not overcome the presumption of negligence when his cow ran out onto a highway and caused an accident with a vehicle driver. Quarles v. Tolar, 312 So. 2d 350, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 3094 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1975).

43. In a personal injury action based upon a vehicular collision with a horse, the burden of proof rested upon the owner of the horse to establish that he was not negligent in allowing the animal to be on the highway; the horse owner failed to prove that he was not negligent. Schexnider v. Allstate Ins. Co., 304 So. 2d 825, 1974 La. App. LEXIS 4576 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974).

44. Although a cow owner took reasonable and prudent steps to maintain her fences in good condition, she had the burden of proving how a cow escaped from her property onto a highway where it caused an accident, and, by failing to sustain that burden, under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §  3:2803 and La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 she was liable for personal injuries suffered by an automobile driver and several adult and minor passengers. Womack v. Rhymes, 300 So. 2d 226, 1974 La. App. LEXIS 3182 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1974).

45. Although the language used in La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 indicates that absolute liability is imposed on the owner for damages caused by his animal, jurisprudence is settled that the cited article must be read and considered with La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315 and that the owner is liable for damage done by the animal only in cases where he is chargeable with some fault or negligence. Bryant v. McCann, 297 So. 2d 262, 1974 La. App. LEXIS 4398 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974).

46. Plaintiff, whose daughter was scratched by a dog while playing in the dog owner's yard, failed to establish that the dog had shown a dangerous propensity in the past, or that the owner had reason to suspect the dog was dangerous. Losch v. Travelers Ins. Co., 264 So. 2d 240, 1972 La. App. LEXIS 5988 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1972).

47. Where a store owner gave no adequate warning to a customer of its vicious dog on the premises and who posted no sign prohibiting the public from entering the area where the dog was kept, under La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2321, 2315, and 2316, the owner was liable for injuries the dog inflicted on the customer. Cavallino v. Craft Motor Co., 244 So. 2d 333, 1971 La. App. LEXIS 6457 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1971).

48. Although La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 appeared to subject the owner of an animal to absolute liability for any damage caused by it regardless of fault, the section was uniformly read in conjunction with La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 2315 and 2316 to require a showing that the animal owner had knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities before assessing fault against the owner. Rolen v. Maryland Cas. Co., 240 So. 2d 42, 1970 La. App. LEXIS 4920 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1970).

49. Owner of an animal is answerable for damages caused by it only in instances where the owner is guilty of some fault or negligence in the ownership or possession of the animal. Braswell v. Central Mut. Ins. Co., 223 So. 2d 204, 1969 La. App. LEXIS 5517 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1969).

50. There was no liability under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 on the owner of the dog that bit because the occurrence which brought about the damage was an unforeseen event; where there had been no occurrence or incident in the past and the dog had not bitten or displayed a vicious or ferocious disposition, the owner was not liable for damages to the child who was bitten. Cabaness v. Mascarella, 203 So. 2d 912, 1967 La. App. LEXIS 4756 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967).

51. Where a filly owner had knowledge of prior episodes of the filly's kicking, he was found negligent in not alerting the victim as to the dangerous propensity of the filly because a warning by the filly's owner would have alerted the victim as to the animal's characteristics and made him anticipatory of his reactions. Tamburello v. Jaeger, 249 LA. 25, 184 So. 2d 544, 1966 La. LEXIS 2476 (1966).

52. Farmer was negligent in failing to block a gully under his fence, thus enabling the escape of a bull which ran into a highway where a vehicle collided with it, and he was liable for injuries to the vehicle's occupants under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321. Kennedy v. Frierson, 142 So. 2d 838, 1962 La. App. LEXIS 2112 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1962).

53. Trial court erred in applying La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 literally and in holding a dog owner liable for injuries caused by a dog bite where there is a fault or negligence requirement in the statute and the owner established that he had no actual or constructive knowledge of any vicious characteristics possessed by the dog. Marsh v. Snyder, 113 So. 2d 5, 1959 La. App. LEXIS 1180 (La.App., Orleans 1959).

54. Cattle owner negligently failed to maintain a fence enclosing his livestock, which broke through a weak spot and trampled a sweet potato field, but the farmers failed to prove pecuniary loss because the crop had been ruined by excess rainfall. Harris v. Roy, 108 So. 2d 7, 1958 La. App. LEXIS 700 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1958).

55. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321 is a negligence statute rather than a strict liability statute. Harris v. Roy, 108 So. 2d 7, 1958 La. App. LEXIS 700 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1958).