MOOT FACT!
SUMMARY OF FACTS ESTABLISHED AT TRIAL
This appeal stems from a personal injury suit involving Ms. Jane
Kate (Appellant) and Mr. Lawrence Adewale (Respondent), the
owner of a residential property where the incident occurred. The
case concerns injuries sustained by the Appellant after an
encounter with the Respondent’s dog, Rex, and a subsequent fall
down a staircase on the premises.
At trial in the High Court of Sambisa, the court held both parties
equally liable—apportioning 50% liability to the Respondent on
the grounds of animal and occupiers ’ liability, and 50%
contributory negligence to the Appellant.
Both parties have appealed. The Appellant contends that the
Respondent should bear full liability, alleging that his negligence
was the sole and proximate cause of the incident. The
Respondent cross-appeals, asserting that he should bear no
liability, arguing that the Appellant ’ s actions severed causation
and amounted to complete contributory negligence.
Key Evidence Presented by the Appellant
1. Pattern of Aggression:
- Neighbor testimony revealed prior incidents of Rex barking
aggressively and chasing pedestrians.
- Evidence showed that the Respondent had received two
complaints but took no effective action.
2. Dog Behavior Records:
- Veterinary records indicated the Respondent sought behavioral
training for Rex six months earlier for issues related to
“reactivity.”
- A dog behaviorist opined the bite aligned with behaviors
seen in both provoked and unprovoked attacks, compounded by
poor training.
3. Hazardous Premises:
- Photographs of the staircase showed worn steps and a missing
handrail.
- A building code expert confirmed the stairs were
non-compliant and posed a fall risk.
- The Appellant claimed she was unaware of the defect as she
fled the scene in panic.
4. Causation and Injury:
- Medical experts linked the panic from the bite to the fall,
asserting it was a “natural and foreseeable consequence.”
- Emergency responders confirmed she sustained injuries from
both the bite and the fall.
Key Evidence Presented by the Respondent
1. Provocation of the Dog:
- Security footage showed the Appellant striking the dog twice
before the bite occurred.
- Witnesses claimed the Appellant entered a fenced area marked
with a visible “Beware of Dog” sign.
2. Independent Injury Argument:
- A medical expert testified that the head injury from the fall (not
the bite) was the most serious and required surgery, making it a
separate, more severe harm.
- The Respondent ’ s counsel argued that this broke the chain of
causation.
3. Alternative Exit and Lighting:
- Testimony established that the staircase was well-lit and that
another, safer exit existed, which the Appellant declined to use.
- The Respondent asserted that monthly checks were conducted
and no prior staircase incidents had been reported.
4. Leash Tampering Allegation:
- Forensic review of Rex ’ s leash suggested it was snapped,
possibly due to external interference.
-The Respondent suggested the Appellant may have tampered
with the leash, leading to the dog's aggression.
Legal Issues Raised on Appeal
1. Whether the trial court erred in attributing equal liability
between the parties under animal and occupiers’ liability laws.
2. Whether the Respondent’s negligence was the sole proximate
cause of the Appellant’s injuries.
3. Whether the Appellant ’ s actions (including alleged
provocation and choice of escape route) constituted contributory
negligence or severed causation.
4. Whether the staircase condition was sufficiently hazardous to
impose liability under occupiers’ liability principles.
NOTE:
The fact provided is fictional. Any resemblance to real persons
and events
is coincidental.
MODALITIES
1. The Appellants are to serve their processes on or before 5th of
May, 2025
2. The Respondents are to serve their processes on or before 8th
of May, 2025
3. All processes are to be compiled in new time Roman (front 12)
4. Parties are expected to exhibit the highest standard of
courtroom etiquette and mannerism
SCORING CRITERIA
Counsels shall be graded base on the following criteria:
1. Knowledge of law 10 marks
2. Knowledge of fact 10 marks
3. Eloquence 10 marks
4. Court room mannerism 10 marks
5. Ingenuity 10 marks
6. Dressing 10 marks
7. Confidence 10 marks
8. Briefs 30 marks
