Section 433 if the damage occurs because the animal You own an animal or person that the recipient party to receive treatment instead of the owner must use the compensation to parties who have damage to any damage. Caused, but the animals. Unless they can prove that he has used reasonable care to maintain the culture of the type and nature of the animal or by other circumstances, or proof that the damage that will inevitably have to come up with all that just to be careful. that
Furthermore the person responsible in the beginning of the paragraph will take recourse to persons who provoke us or the animals in violation. Or other animal to the owner took the animal to us, or provoke any time.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2634/2542.
Accused 2 and 3, the owner Cgrongpolai Manual defendants 4 and 5, a son of the defendant, 3, and is the recipient party receiving treatment Male elephant Manual on behalf of the owner defendant, 4 and 5, the Male elephant Manual to parade in the parade orbit with Chang Chang's other, which included the plaintiff. Manual Male elephant wounded elephant plaintiff's injuries and died later the second and third defendants is not going to witness the five defendants joined the elephant in the parade because it is a different village each orbit. Shows that the defendant, 4 and 5, as the recipient party is strictly prohibited by manual treatment Male elephant defendants 2 and 3 did not benefit and are associated with Liability would fall to the defendant, 4 and 5, the recipient party for treatment in lieu of their respective owners and Commercial Code, Section 433 defendants 2 and 3 do not have joint liability.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2628/2526.
Rs. With legs withered walking cane pole to lean, but the Dog. A professional to oversee construction vehicles driving out of the house every day to oversee the Dog Show. The ability to ride motorcycles. That are not allowed to have driver's license, motor vehicle under the car. Is not a reason to keep listening to the Rs. Negligence.
The P., who raised cattle instead of the two defendants left the cattle to graze on the highway between the provinces, which Ahentnn independence hitch or catch it towed. Procrastination is not careful animal care, as appropriate, because the animals are not public roads. Both the defendant is negligent party before, but at the bottom. The cattle walking along the street and closer to motorcyclists and honk Cause cattle to express shock and gore motorcycle. Death. Can be considered as negligence of the Dog. The one with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2488/2523.
Accused dog in the home away from home to bite the plaintiff. Given that his wife, the defendant owned. When a case is suspected. Must assume that the dog is Sinsomrns under the Civil and Commercial Code Section 1474 is a dog owner with the defendant.
Dog escape while the defendant opened the door. Dog bites are to the plaintiff to show that the defendant did not use reasonable care in feeding the dog the defendant must pay damages to the plaintiff, including replacement of shock and suffering with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 846/2516.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for 16 people is liable for damages to the plaintiff money together. The lawsuit does not describe whether the defendant violated the plaintiff's share. And the action did not appear that any defendant who control their own buffaloes or control on behalf of any And not making clear description of any buffalo that damage to the plaintiff how much. Is ambiguous action.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1006/2510.
Circumstances indicate that the party did not treat calves using reasonable caution.
Chang, owner of the other people take their elephants to drag the wood employed. That person is doing instead of the defendant. When the baby elephant to harm third parties by people who take their elephants to be careful not reasonable. Author elephant is liable to pay compensation to those who are harming the elephants.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 975/2510.
Buffalo, the defendant lost. Defendants note, however, does not follow immediately Buffalo to soak in water canals, public Even to negligence by the defendant. But because the damage caused by the negligence of the defendant, but not unilateral. If the plaintiff because the drive motor boat speed, so people come out to Buffalo. Buffalo injuries. The plaintiff's negligence with The plaintiff is required to claim damages for the defendant. To deduct any damage caused because of negligence of the defendant before.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 889/2510.
Elephant owners give their children the care and treatment working party exploits. The elephant owners not involved in farming or contract. When damage by elephants elephant owners not liable for infringement. Raising children is liable only treatment of elephants.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 591/2510.
Raising the fierce buffalo buffalo take a walk in a way that is not the way for Buffalo and walk closer to home with other Buffalo tied the interpreter. Which could cause it ran into fierce buffalo buffalo nation is tied to an interpreter. As was made in the absence of negligence by the nature of the personal care that fierce animals.
Buffalo looks butt plaintiff because the defendant's negligence in absence of the defendant, while aware of the employee's official duties under employment.
The defendant is the employer liable for damages to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1067/2496.
Own mother elephant, but child care is the elephant in lieu of the mother. And children also employ as Kwan Chang and maintain a culture that when violations occur. Employees leave each year by careless negligence cause the elephants to elephant damage other items of damage such as this. Children must be shared with employees liable for damages to him. But the mother elephant's owner was not involved with anything. Can not be jointly liable with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1686/2493.
In case of damage, because animal According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 433 describe the plaintiff sued the owner of the buffalo culture and do abuse. Buffalo gore buffalo make their damages to the plaintiff's death, this action is clear. And displays the result of very old charges under the Code of Civil Procedure Section 172, then no need to describe it. The defendant acts willfully or with negligence.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 867/2492.
Section 433 Civil and Commercial Code is the duty of the animal's owner to prove that To use reasonable care for the animals. Treatment according to the type and nature of the animal.
Elephant heat defendant's full. If you hear someone is chasing elephant rampage once accused of roaming the neighborhood at least 20 days, but the defendant is waiting for the day care in sparse It does not close. In the night not find the watch. When it appears that the elephant's death, defendant had attacked another defendant who has used an elephant and legs shot that caught the defendant had used reasonable care to maintain the culture of the type and nature of the animals can not
Furthermore the person responsible in the beginning of the paragraph will take recourse to persons who provoke us or the animals in violation. Or other animal to the owner took the animal to us, or provoke any time.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2634/2542.
Accused 2 and 3, the owner Cgrongpolai Manual defendants 4 and 5, a son of the defendant, 3, and is the recipient party receiving treatment Male elephant Manual on behalf of the owner defendant, 4 and 5, the Male elephant Manual to parade in the parade orbit with Chang Chang's other, which included the plaintiff. Manual Male elephant wounded elephant plaintiff's injuries and died later the second and third defendants is not going to witness the five defendants joined the elephant in the parade because it is a different village each orbit. Shows that the defendant, 4 and 5, as the recipient party is strictly prohibited by manual treatment Male elephant defendants 2 and 3 did not benefit and are associated with Liability would fall to the defendant, 4 and 5, the recipient party for treatment in lieu of their respective owners and Commercial Code, Section 433 defendants 2 and 3 do not have joint liability.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2628/2526.
Rs. With legs withered walking cane pole to lean, but the Dog. A professional to oversee construction vehicles driving out of the house every day to oversee the Dog Show. The ability to ride motorcycles. That are not allowed to have driver's license, motor vehicle under the car. Is not a reason to keep listening to the Rs. Negligence.
The P., who raised cattle instead of the two defendants left the cattle to graze on the highway between the provinces, which Ahentnn independence hitch or catch it towed. Procrastination is not careful animal care, as appropriate, because the animals are not public roads. Both the defendant is negligent party before, but at the bottom. The cattle walking along the street and closer to motorcyclists and honk Cause cattle to express shock and gore motorcycle. Death. Can be considered as negligence of the Dog. The one with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2488/2523.
Accused dog in the home away from home to bite the plaintiff. Given that his wife, the defendant owned. When a case is suspected. Must assume that the dog is Sinsomrns under the Civil and Commercial Code Section 1474 is a dog owner with the defendant.
Dog escape while the defendant opened the door. Dog bites are to the plaintiff to show that the defendant did not use reasonable care in feeding the dog the defendant must pay damages to the plaintiff, including replacement of shock and suffering with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 846/2516.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for 16 people is liable for damages to the plaintiff money together. The lawsuit does not describe whether the defendant violated the plaintiff's share. And the action did not appear that any defendant who control their own buffaloes or control on behalf of any And not making clear description of any buffalo that damage to the plaintiff how much. Is ambiguous action.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1006/2510.
Circumstances indicate that the party did not treat calves using reasonable caution.
Chang, owner of the other people take their elephants to drag the wood employed. That person is doing instead of the defendant. When the baby elephant to harm third parties by people who take their elephants to be careful not reasonable. Author elephant is liable to pay compensation to those who are harming the elephants.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 975/2510.
Buffalo, the defendant lost. Defendants note, however, does not follow immediately Buffalo to soak in water canals, public Even to negligence by the defendant. But because the damage caused by the negligence of the defendant, but not unilateral. If the plaintiff because the drive motor boat speed, so people come out to Buffalo. Buffalo injuries. The plaintiff's negligence with The plaintiff is required to claim damages for the defendant. To deduct any damage caused because of negligence of the defendant before.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 889/2510.
Elephant owners give their children the care and treatment working party exploits. The elephant owners not involved in farming or contract. When damage by elephants elephant owners not liable for infringement. Raising children is liable only treatment of elephants.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 591/2510.
Raising the fierce buffalo buffalo take a walk in a way that is not the way for Buffalo and walk closer to home with other Buffalo tied the interpreter. Which could cause it ran into fierce buffalo buffalo nation is tied to an interpreter. As was made in the absence of negligence by the nature of the personal care that fierce animals.
Buffalo looks butt plaintiff because the defendant's negligence in absence of the defendant, while aware of the employee's official duties under employment.
The defendant is the employer liable for damages to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1067/2496.
Own mother elephant, but child care is the elephant in lieu of the mother. And children also employ as Kwan Chang and maintain a culture that when violations occur. Employees leave each year by careless negligence cause the elephants to elephant damage other items of damage such as this. Children must be shared with employees liable for damages to him. But the mother elephant's owner was not involved with anything. Can not be jointly liable with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1686/2493.
In case of damage, because animal According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 433 describe the plaintiff sued the owner of the buffalo culture and do abuse. Buffalo gore buffalo make their damages to the plaintiff's death, this action is clear. And displays the result of very old charges under the Code of Civil Procedure Section 172, then no need to describe it. The defendant acts willfully or with negligence.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 867/2492.
Section 433 Civil and Commercial Code is the duty of the animal's owner to prove that To use reasonable care for the animals. Treatment according to the type and nature of the animal.
Elephant heat defendant's full. If you hear someone is chasing elephant rampage once accused of roaming the neighborhood at least 20 days, but the defendant is waiting for the day care in sparse It does not close. In the night not find the watch. When it appears that the elephant's death, defendant had attacked another defendant who has used an elephant and legs shot that caught the defendant had used reasonable care to maintain the culture of the type and nature of the animals can not
