Baugh v. Beatty
California Court of Appeal
91 Cal. App. 2d 786, 205 P.2d 671 (1949)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Four-year-old Dennis Ray Baugh (plaintiff) was exploring a circus-animal tent that contained multiple cages of chimpanzees. Although there were ropes to prevent the visitors from approaching the cages, Dennis walked under the rope to feed a peanut to a chimpanzee. The chimpanzee bit Dennis’s hand. Dennis’s father, John R. Baugh (plaintiff) filed a personal-injury tort action against the circus operator, Clyde Beatty (defendant) on Dennis’s behalf. At the trial, Baugh presented two separate theories of negligence and requested the trial court to give two separate instructions to the jury. Baugh requested that the trial court instruct the jury that a business operator owes a duty to an invitee to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Baugh also requested that the trial court instruct the jury on the attractive-nuisance doctrine. The court denied both instruction requests. Instead, the court instructed the jury to consider whether Beatty was aware that the chimpanzee was a dangerous animal and whether Dennis had knowingly brought the injury upon himself. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Beatty. Baugh motioned for a new trial on the ground that the trial court had erred by denying the requested instructions. The trial court denied the motion, and Baugh appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
