Torts → Chapter II → Intentional Interference with Person or Property → 1.

Intent

Ranson v. Kitner
Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889. 31 Ill.App. 241. Justice Conger Facts:

Ranson (∆) was hunting for wolves when they came across Kitner (π)’s dog and killed it. ∆ claimed it was an accident occasioned by the dog’s uncanny resemblance to a wolf, and that they should therefore not be held liable. ∏ sued ∆ for the value of his dog after they killed it. ∆ admitted to killing π’s dog, but argued that they were not liable because they did so out of a good faith belief that it was a wolf. The jury found them liable for the value of the dog. ∆ appealed. Whether ∆ were entitled to relief from a jury verdict that they were liable for the value of the dog due to their good faith, mistaken belief that the dog was a wolf? No. The jury’s verdict was affirmed. When one damages another, he is liable for that damage, even if he would not have committed the act causing the damage but for a good faith but mistaken belief.

Procedural History:

Issue(s):

Holding(s) and Rules of Law
● ●

Reasoning:

Disposition:

Affirmed. If ∆ caused damages, even by mistake and acting in good faith, then they are liable for said damages.

Conclusion:

Questions/Comments:

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful