Originally posted by: patentman
I'm assuming your negihbor would sue you for the tort of negligence...i.e. you negligently let your dogs run free such such that they caused the death of her cat... In this case the neighbor has to prove 5 elements: 1. Duty; 2. Breach of Duty; 3. Actual Cause; 4. Proximate Cause; and 5. Harm (damage). I think her case is weak in the following respects:
First, I don't know where your duty of care with repect to your dogs extends to her cat. You maintained the dogs in the yard in a safe manner did you not? Further, even if you have a duty of care to your neighbor with respect to your dogs, you did not breach that duty with respect to her. In fact, I don;t see how you breached that duty at all. So long as you maintained your dogs in a safe manner in your yard, it is likely that a trier of fact (judge or jury) will find that you undertook reasoable precautions.
Second, even if duty and breach of duty are shown, your neighor has a causation problem. Your neighbor must show that your negligent acts were the actual and proximate cause of the harm. Actual cause is shown when "but for" the negligent act, the harm would not have occurred. Here, although it can be argued, it is likely that actual cause is met. Proximate cause, on the other hand, is much harder to show here. Proximate cause has to do with foreseeability...the more remote the negligent act is from the harm, the less likely proximate cause is met. Here, the death of your negihbors cat seems to be pretty remote from the act of letting your dogs out the door. Of course, this might be a different story if the facts were that you saw the cat in the yard, and set your dogs on it.
Third, even if, arguendo, all of the elements of tort negligence are met in your case, you have an absolute defense available to you. Namely that the plaintiff, your neighbor, volunatarily encountered the risk of harm when she allowed her cat to run about the neighborhood, knowing full well that you, her next door neighbor, owned several large dogs that patrolled your property. In U.S. courts, volenti non fit injuria, A willing victim cannot claim.
Moreover, if you live in a contributory negligence state you may or may not have an absolute defense. If your act of lettig your dogs out was negligent, so was her act of letting her cat out. In some states if a plaintiff contributes even 1% to the commision of the harm, then they cannot collect.. in other states, the amount the P can collect is reduced by the relative amount they contributed to the harm 9e.g. the jury awards $10, the plaintiff was 40% responsible for the accident, so the court gives the plaintiff $6)
Finally, if you are like me, and you think breeding cats is offensive and should be against the law, you could argue ex turpi causa non oritur acto (no right of action arises from despicable causes).... ok, this is a joke, but the other stuf is not.
With respect to damages: In most states a plaintiff can only recover "non-speculative" damages. In this case, that would mean that your neighbor could likely recover for the cost of the cat and maybe some pain an suffering. Future litters the cat "might" have had are too speculative to warrant damages, especially when replacement of the cat with another of reproducing age will compensate the plaintiff fully for any potential loss with the same amount of risk..
Finally, the grand disclaimer: I am a law student. I am not a lawyer. The information given above is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you plan to undertake legal action, do not rely upon this information, get a lawyer. Any reliance upon the above informatin is at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any harms or costs which may arise as the result of the above information.