Problem
You work in a small personal injury firm, and your client, Alaska Adeventura, was injured in a recreational dog-sledding crash. Alaska took the ride at a winter festival. The dogs tipped the sled and Alaska was thrown into a tree and sustained severe injuries. You are considering bringing a strict liability action under the Minnesota dog liability statute. You've read the statute and a few early cases, and you know that the statute imposes strict liability when a dog "attacks or injures" a person. Now you have the case Lewellin v. Huber in front of you. You need to know if the statute covers injuries resulting from a dog-sledding accident so you can evaluate whether bringing a suit under the statute is a reasonable option to offer your client. If the statute applies, it will be an easier avenue to recovery than a negligence claim would be.
Brief the case of Lewellin v. Huber_ 465 N.W.2d 62.PDF
Actions
Keeping in mind the question above you are trying to answer. Please put brief in FIRAC form.
As you read and brief, you will want to compare and contrast the client's case above with that of the Lewellin case facts to see if it the case is "on point" to apply the statute.
After you brief the case answer the below:
• What is the client's issue in the above fact-pattern?
• What are the arguments for and against the application of the strict liability statute in the facts of our client, Alaska's, case?