Young v Rose (CA 18/2013) [2016] SCSC 112 (26 February 2016)

Young v Rose (CA 18/2013) [2016] SCSC 112 (26 February 2016)

The appellant was liable as owner of the dog that bit the respondent, but the quantum of damages was excessive and should be reduced to SR40,000.00 considering the circumstances and lack of permanent disability.

Citation
[2016] SCSC 112
Parties
Appellant: Marlene Young; Respondent: Yannick Rose
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
26 February 2016
Case Number
CA 18/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal partially allowed
Legal Topics
Liability for Animals, Quantum of Damages, Vicarious Liability
Source Language
English
Tort Law Liability for Animals Quantum of Damages Vicarious Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marlene Young

Appellant

Yannick Rose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dog that bit the respondent belonged to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was liable for the injuries caused by the dog
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages awarded was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was liable as owner of the dog that bit the respondent, but the quantum of damages was excessive and should be reduced to SR40,000.00 considering the circumstances and lack of permanent disability.

Court Disposition

appeal partially allowed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent SR40,000.00 as damages with interest at the legal rate
  • Costs in both courts awarded to the respondent