Pichelman vs. Barfknecht
Pichelman v. Barfknecht
Issue: Should Arnold and Sylvia Barfknecht have been convicted of a negligent tort against Betty Pichelman?
Rule: A negligent tort involves the failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another’s person or property. It wouldn’t qualify for an intentional tort because Arnold and Sylvia did not willfully take actions that were likely to cause injury. Duty, Branch of Duty, Causation, and Damages are all required in order for a plaintiff to prove negligence of a defendant. The reasonable person standard, which the courts use to determine whether or not an individual owes a duty of care to another, states that the courts generally hold that landowners have a duty of care to protect individuals on their property. However, in Hudson v. Janesville Conservation Club, Hudson held that under the statute 895.52, “no owner is liable for any injury resulting from an attack by a wild animal.” An exception to this statute is if the injury occurs to a social guest who has been invited to their property by the owner. Section 895.52 of Wisconsin law also provides property owners with immunity from liability to anyone injured by a person engaging in recreational activity regardless of whether the injured person was also engaged in recreational activity.
Analysis: The statute 895.52 provides immunity from liability for any owners of wild animals causing injuries on their property, however, it is questionable as to whether the raccoon is really considered a wild animal simply because other members of its species run free and are perceived as being un-predictable at times. The Barfknechts defend themselves by saying that “the fact that Babe was something of a pet does not take him out of the category of ferae naturae.” Because of the fact that the courts say she was not involved in a recreational activity, they were not taking her side in the case. She was delivering groceries at her friend’s request. Property owners have a duty to keep the property
Issue: Should Arnold and Sylvia Barfknecht have been convicted of a negligent tort against Betty Pichelman?
Rule: A negligent tort involves the failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another’s person or property. It wouldn’t qualify for an intentional tort because Arnold and Sylvia did not willfully take actions that were likely to cause injury. Duty, Branch of Duty, Causation, and Damages are all required in order for a plaintiff to prove negligence of a defendant. The reasonable person standard, which the courts use to determine whether or not an individual owes a duty of care to another, states that the courts generally hold that landowners have a duty of care to protect individuals on their property. However, in Hudson v. Janesville Conservation Club, Hudson held that under the statute 895.52, “no owner is liable for any injury resulting from an attack by a wild animal.” An exception to this statute is if the injury occurs to a social guest who has been invited to their property by the owner. Section 895.52 of Wisconsin law also provides property owners with immunity from liability to anyone injured by a person engaging in recreational activity regardless of whether the injured person was also engaged in recreational activity.
Analysis: The statute 895.52 provides immunity from liability for any owners of wild animals causing injuries on their property, however, it is questionable as to whether the raccoon is really considered a wild animal simply because other members of its species run free and are perceived as being un-predictable at times. The Barfknechts defend themselves by saying that “the fact that Babe was something of a pet does not take him out of the category of ferae naturae.” Because of the fact that the courts say she was not involved in a recreational activity, they were not taking her side in the case. She was delivering groceries at her friend’s request. Property owners have a duty to keep the property