The One Bite Rule
It was in the law lecture class when i have heard of this one bite rule for the first time. I have never owned a dog in Singapore and never noticed that such a rule exists until then. The meaning of this is that common law shielded the owner of a domestic animal from civil liability to the first victim of each of his animals. This absolving principle came to be known variously as the "one bite rule," the "first bite rule," or the "first bite free" rule.
The rationale of the one bite rule was that domestic animals by definition were not injurious, and therefore liability could be predicated only on the defendant's knowledge that a particular animal had a propensity to behave in manner that was injurious to humans. Again, the rule applied to any type of injury, whether or not a bite.
At first I thought this rule reveals the benevolent side of the law. Our lecturer told a joke to us, "You guys should make sure that it is your enemey whom your dog bites for the first time , not your friend cos it's a free bite." His joke was successful to a certain extent and students laughed. So did it.
But if you look at this law from another perspective, you will sense that there are some serious flaws. What if the extent of the injury is very serious? The victim bitten by the dog who bites a person for the first time still have to pay medical bill and he or she still suffers. By the time this law was made in England, the environment and the situation will probably make this law look flawless, but in modern days we are living in a more materialistic world and medical bills are relatively less affordable. Every owner of dogs are aware that victims are going to suffer as a result of the vicious attack by the dog even if the dog has never done such an act previously.
Thus in my opinion this rule ought to be amended. If you dig a litter deeper into this issue, you shall notice that several states of US have amended this rule. I am not sure whether this law has been amended in Singapore but if not yet, I shall give a thumb up to anyone who tries to change this rule.
Note: I found the image I am using in this post from Google Image Search. The copyrights of the image remain with the original creator.
The rationale of the one bite rule was that domestic animals by definition were not injurious, and therefore liability could be predicated only on the defendant's knowledge that a particular animal had a propensity to behave in manner that was injurious to humans. Again, the rule applied to any type of injury, whether or not a bite.
At first I thought this rule reveals the benevolent side of the law. Our lecturer told a joke to us, "You guys should make sure that it is your enemey whom your dog bites for the first time , not your friend cos it's a free bite." His joke was successful to a certain extent and students laughed. So did it.
But if you look at this law from another perspective, you will sense that there are some serious flaws. What if the extent of the injury is very serious? The victim bitten by the dog who bites a person for the first time still have to pay medical bill and he or she still suffers. By the time this law was made in England, the environment and the situation will probably make this law look flawless, but in modern days we are living in a more materialistic world and medical bills are relatively less affordable. Every owner of dogs are aware that victims are going to suffer as a result of the vicious attack by the dog even if the dog has never done such an act previously.
Thus in my opinion this rule ought to be amended. If you dig a litter deeper into this issue, you shall notice that several states of US have amended this rule. I am not sure whether this law has been amended in Singapore but if not yet, I shall give a thumb up to anyone who tries to change this rule.
Note: I found the image I am using in this post from Google Image Search. The copyrights of the image remain with the original creator.
No comments:
Post a Comment