Overview: According to the undisputed facts, the cat had never bitten anyone, nor exhibited any aggressive tendencies prior to this incident. The individual alleged that the cat owners acted negligently in allowing their cat to roam freely and to attack her. The individual did not allege that any particular circumstances existed that should have put the cat owners on notice that their cat would be violent or that they needed to prevent it from coming into contact with the individual. Rather, the individual argued that any contact between a cat and a human being was fraught with danger. Such contacts occurred frequently, were not normally dangerous, and, absent an owner's knowledge of particular facts that would render an injury foreseeable, did not present circumstances for which liability arose. Furthermore, the attack by the cat was unforeseeable, as there were no circumstances that alerted the cat owners to the possibility that their cat would act aggressively. Absent foreseeability, the cat owners owed no duty to restrain their cat under the common law, municipal law, or state law.
Translation: Mean cat posing as nice cat bit a lady's hand. Lady whose hand got hurt thinks the cat's owner is a jerk and should have to pay $40,000 for the infection she got when the bite aggravated her previously medically stable autoimmune disorder. Court says look lady, it's a cat.
How can you hate law school after something like that?
