Marsalis v. La Salle

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Orleans · 1957 · Torts

TortsNegligenceDomestic animalsVoluntary undertakingdomestic animalsscientervicious propensitiesstorekeeper duty

Facts

Mrs. Marsalis was bitten or scratched by a Siamese cat in defendant's store while shopping with her husband. The cat had never before shown vicious tendencies and was ordinarily a gentle pet, but the court found that after the incident defendant agreed to keep the cat confined for fourteen days so its condition could be observed for rabies. A few days later the cat escaped because defendant and his wife took no special precautions beyond its usual routine, and Mrs. Marsalis then underwent a fourteen-shot Pasteur treatment that caused at least headaches, fever, nausea, and disorientation. Plaintiffs sought damages for her injuries and for related expenses.

Issue

Was the defendant liable even though he had no prior knowledge that the cat was vicious, either because he was a storekeeper or because he voluntarily undertook to confine the cat for observation and failed to use reasonable care in doing so? If liable, what damages were sufficiently proved to have been caused by that failure?

Rule

A proprietor is not liable merely because a domestic animal on the premises injures a patron when the animal had shown no prior vicious tendencies and the proprietor had no notice of danger. However, one who voluntarily undertakes, even gratuitously, to do an act or render services that he should recognize as necessary to another's bodily safety is bound to use reasonable care in performing that undertaking when the other reasonably relies on it and thereby foregoes other protective measures; liability extends to bodily harm proximately caused by the negligent performance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a bakery in Columbus, owner Nina Paredes keeps her family beagle near the register. The dog has always been docile and has never snapped at anyone before, but one afternoon it suddenly bites customer Evan Cole on the hand.

If Evan sues Nina for the bite itself, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that an owner or harborer of a domestic animal is not liable for the initial injury absent fault, including prior knowledge or notice of vicious tendencies. The mere presence of a gentle domestic animal in a place of business is not negligence, and the storekeeper-customer relationship does not create stricter liability.