Veeramani Chettiar VS Davis

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

K.M.JOSEPH, K.HARILAL
Veeramani Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Davis – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:K.P. Dandapani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N.P. Samuel and Ignatius Philip, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

K. Harilal, J.—An interesting as well as unusual issue that emerges in this intra Court appeal is broadly the nature and extent of liability of the owner/keeper, for the damages caused by his dangerous animal. More precisely, the points that arise for our decision are:

(1) What is the law governing the nature and extent of liability of the owner/keeper, for the damage caused by a dangerous animal?

(2) Whether an elephant is a dangerous animal?

(3) Whether the owner/keeper of a dangerous animal is strictly liable, independently of negligence, for the damage caused by the dangerous animal?

(4) Whether wrongful act of a third party can be a defence to liability for the damage caused by the dangerous animal?

(5) Whether the defence that a particular dangerous animal was always quiet, well trained and tamed, makes any difference in the application of the doctrine of strict liability?

2. This intra Court Appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S. No. 602/1997 partly confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 30/1991 of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The appellant is the 1st defendant and the suit was one for da