Legal Opinion

Jay Rhodes v. Rodney Machugh

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided November 3, 2015No. 32509-1-IIIPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSiddoway, C. J.

¶ 1 — Comments to § 23 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which deals with strict liability imposed on the owners of abnormally dangerous animals, observe that the common law has been satisfied overall with the generalization that livestock are not excessively dangerous, but “[i]n the future, courts might wish to give consideration to particular genders ... of a species that involve danger levels uncommon for the species itself.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 23 cmt. e (Am. Law Inst. 2010) (emphasis added). In this case, Jay Rhodes asks us to hold…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Washington State Finance Committee v. MartinWashington Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Johnston v. OhlsWashington Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Arnold v. LairdWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Sligar v. OdellCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
  5. Sligar v. OdellCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Rhodes v. MacHughWashington Supreme Court · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API