PROSECUTION Article 2183 reads as follows: The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible

for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. 'This responsibility shall cease only in case the damages should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILS) Afialda vs Hisole: The complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was the caretaker's duty to prevent the carabao from causing injury to any one, including himself. PURITA MIRANDA VESTIL and AGUSTIN VESTIL, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, DAVID UY and TERESITA UY, respondents. Their pain (damage caused by the dog) should at least be assuaged by the civil damages to which they are entitled. Gomberg vs Smith The owner or keeper of an animal may become liable under the general principles of tort law just as the owner of any chattel may become so liable. If, for example, a person brings a dog onto the highway he may be liable in Negligence if he does not exercise reasonable care controlling the dog. Kavanagh vs Stokes The occupier of premises may be liable if, for example, injury is caused to a lawful entrant by the occupier's dog Rylands v. Fletcher If animals are collected on property, in such a way as to amount to a non-natural user of the land, and, if they are likely to do damage if they escape, the owner may then be liable for all injuries caused by such an escape. DEFENSE Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. (CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILS) Article 58 Torts Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their parental authority in accordance with the civil Code. (CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE) McStay v. Morrissey The owner of bees is liable for injuries inflicted by the bees on persons living in the vicinity only where there is clear evidence that the bees are kept in unreasonable numbers and in an unreasonable place, or that the injuries were caused as a result of the negligence of the owner in the handling and management of the bees. Scully v. Mulhall It is equally clear that if there was no negligence on the part of the handler of the cattle the defendants would not be liable unless scienter or nuisance were proved. For example, it was held that a person is not guilty of negligence for merely bringing and driving a bullock known to be quiet

on the highway. The action arose because although known to be quiet and being driven properly the bullock in question suddenly broke into a gallop and knocked the plaintiff off her bicycle.