Tortsmistakegood faithintentional interference with propertydogwolfliabilitydamages
Facts
Appellants killed appellee's dog while hunting for wolves. They claimed the dog had a striking resemblance to a wolf and that they in good faith believed it was a wolf when they killed it. Appellee sued to recover the value of the dog. The jury found appellants liable and awarded $50.
Issue
Are defendants liable for the value of a dog they intentionally killed when they acted under a good-faith mistake that the animal was a wolf?
Rule
A person is liable for damages caused by his mistake when he intentionally kills another's dog, even if he acted in good faith under the mistaken belief that the dog was a wolf.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
During a predawn hunt outside Boise, Nolan Pierce saw an animal moving along a fence line and deliberately fired at it. He honestly believed it was a coyote, but it was actually Maya Ortiz's husky that had wandered from her yard.
If Maya sues Nolan for the value of the dog, what is the best result?
Explanation. The controlling rule is that a defendant who intentionally kills another's dog is liable for the value of the dog even if he acted under a good-faith mistake as to the animal's identity. The mistake does not relieve him of liability for the damage caused.