You did a poor job of explaining it. Get over yourself
agreed. Alx is trying be a dick. I also handle these cases and MJ has a good one. ALX wants to act like he is some big shot by shitting on others' opinions.
the law states this:
Art. 2321. Damage caused by animals
The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage caused by the animal. However, he is answerable for the damage only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that his animal's behavior would cause damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care. Nonetheless, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person's provocation of the dog. Nothing in this Article shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case.
You guys, although not nearly as smart as ALX, can figure it out on your own.