Response Guidelines After posting to this discussion read the postings from other students. Respond to at least one other post and identify concerns about the analysis and ask additional questions that would help clarify the position taken. This discussion will analyze whether Pete is entitled to recover against Ocean World under a strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities/animals theory and whether his parents are entitled to recover for their emotional distress under that theory. An owner/possessor of an animal with dangerous tendencies may be subject to strict liability if a person suffers physical harm from the abnormally dangerous tendency of the animal. Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. “Strict liability under §§20-23 does not apply if the person suffers physical or emotional harm as a result of making contact with or coming into proximity to the defendant’s animal or abnormally dangerous activity for the purpose of securing some benefit from that contact or that proximity.” Restatement (Third) of Torts Phys. & Emot. Harm § 24. An activity is abnormally dangerous and subject to strict liability if there is a “highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors” and “the activity is not one of common usage.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §20. In this case Ocean World has an attraction featuring their famous killer whale Jaws. Pete suffered serious physical injuries when Jaws launched himself out of the tank as Pete walked near the edge of it. To be held strictly liable Ocean World must have known or had reason to know that Jaws had “dangerous tendencies abnormal for the animal’s category.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. However “if the plaintiff is a patron of the zoo exposed to wild animals because of the benefits the plaintiff secures by visiting the zoo the plaintiff is beyond the scope the defendant’s strict liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts Phys. & Emot. Harm §24 cmt a. Pete is beyond the scope of Ocean World’s strict liability and is not entitled to recover against Ocean World under a strict liability theory because if reasonable care had been exercised by all actors visiting the tanks would not have carried a significant risk of physical harm. Pete’s parents did not see Jaws’s attack on Pete but they heard him scream and suffered severe emotional distress when they saw him. Their perception of the event is not limited to sight but the parents must have contemporaneously perceived the incident to recover for their emotional distress. Restatement (Third) of Torts Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48 cmt. e (2012). If they do recover the recovery may be reduced because of their own negligent supervision of Pete which enabled him “to wander to a dangerous area” where due to Ocean World’s negligence Pete was injured. Restatement (Third) of Torts Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48 cmt. d (2012). Although Pete and his parents may recover for their harm they will not be able to do so under the theory of strict liability.

Response Guidelines

After posting to this discussion, read the postings from other students. Respond to at least one other post and identify concerns about the analysis, and ask additional questions that would help clarify the position taken.This discussion will

Response Guidelines

After posting to this discussion, read the postings from other students. Respond to at least one other post and identify concerns about the analysis, and ask additional questions that would help clarify the position taken.This discussion will analyze whether Pete is entitled to recover against Ocean World under a strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities/animals theory and whether his parents are entitled to recover for their emotional distress under that theory.

An owner/possessor of an animal with dangerous tendencies may be subject to strict liability if a person suffers physical harm from the abnormally dangerous tendency of the animal. Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. “Strict liability under §§20-23 does not apply if the person suffers physical or emotional harm as a result of making contact with or coming into proximity to the defendant’s animal or abnormally dangerous activity for the purpose of securing some benefit from that contact or that proximity.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 24. An activity is abnormally dangerous and subject to strict liability if there is a “highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors” and “the activity is not one of common usage.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §20.

In this case, Ocean World has an attraction featuring their famous killer whale, Jaws. Pete suffered serious physical injuries when Jaws launched himself out of the tank as Pete walked near the edge of it. To be held strictly liable, Ocean World must have known or had reason to know that Jaws had “dangerous tendencies abnormal for the animal’s category.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. However, “if the plaintiff is a patron of the zoo, exposed to wild animals because of the benefits the plaintiff secures by visiting the zoo, the plaintiff is beyond the scope the defendant’s strict liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm §24 cmt a. Pete is beyond the scope of Ocean World’s strict liability and is not entitled to recover against Ocean World under a strict liability theory because, if reasonable care had been exercised by all actors, visiting the tanks would not have carried a significant risk of physical harm.

Pete’s parents did not see Jaws’s attack on Pete, but they heard him scream and suffered severe emotional distress when they saw him. Their perception of the event is not limited to sight, but the parents must have contemporaneously perceived the incident to recover for their emotional distress. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48, cmt. e (2012). If they do recover, the recovery may be reduced because of their own negligent supervision of Pete which enabled him “to wander to a dangerous area” where, due to Ocean World’s negligence, Pete was injured. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48, cmt. d (2012).

Although Pete and his parents may recover for their harm, they will not be able to do so under the theory of strict liability.

/animals theory and whether his parents are entitled to recover for their emotional distress under that theory.

An owner/possessor of an animal with dangerous tendencies may be subject to strict liability if a person suffers physical harm from the abnormally dangerous tendency of the animal. Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. “Strict liability under §§20-23 does not apply if the person suffers physical or emotional harm as a result of making contact with or coming into proximity to the defendant’s animal or abnormally dangerous activity for the purpose of securing some benefit from that contact or that proximity.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 24. An activity is abnormally dangerous and subject to strict liability if there is a “highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors” and “the activity is not one of common usage.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §20.

In this case, Ocean World has an attraction featuring their famous killer whale, Jaws. Pete suffered serious physical injuries when Jaws launched himself out of the tank as Pete walked near the edge of it. To be held strictly liable, Ocean World must have known or had reason to know that Jaws had “dangerous tendencies abnormal for the animal’s category.” Restatement (Third) of Torts §23. However, “if the plaintiff is a patron of the zoo, exposed to wild animals because of the benefits the plaintiff secures by visiting the zoo, the plaintiff is beyond the scope the defendant’s strict liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm §24 cmt a. Pete is beyond the scope of Ocean World’s strict liability and is not entitled to recover against Ocean World under a strict liability theory because, if reasonable care had been exercised by all actors, visiting the tanks would not have carried a significant risk of physical harm.

Pete’s parents did not see Jaws’s attack on Pete, but they heard him scream and suffered severe emotional distress when they saw him. Their perception of the event is not limited to sight, but the parents must have contemporaneously perceived the incident to recover for their emotional distress. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48, cmt. e (2012). If they do recover, the recovery may be reduced because of their own negligent supervision of Pete which enabled him “to wander to a dangerous area” where, due to Ocean World’s negligence, Pete was injured. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48, cmt. d (2012).

Although Pete and his parents may recover for their harm, they will not be able to do so under the theory of strict liability.

Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -
Tutorpro

High Quality Papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level or professional level, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Tutorpro

Experienced Writers

We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.

Tutorpro

Free Revisions

If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document.

Tutorpro

Timely Delivery

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension.A 100% refund is guaranteed.

Tutorpro

100% Confidential

We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text.

Tutorpro

24/7 Customer Services

Tutorpro support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Tutorpro Homework Help Services

At Tutorpro, we have top rated masters and PhD writers who will help you tacke that homework and score A+ grade. Tutorpro services covers all levels of education : high school, college, university undergraduate, masters and PhD academic level.

Essays

Essay Writing

No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.

Tutorpro

Admissions

Admission Essays

An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.

Tutorpro

Editing

Essay Editing

Tutorpro academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.

Tutorpro

Revision

Revision Support

If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.