Soysa vs Don Charles – clr volume 3 page 043_2

In Soysa v. Don Charles, the court considered the liability of an animal’s owner for injuries caused while the animal was trespassing. It was determined that liability attaches to the owner if the animal is trespassing, regardless of whether the injury was unexpected or if the owner knew of any dangerous tendencies. The findings established that when the animal is not trespassing, liability depends on the character of the animal (wild or domestic) and whether the owner had knowledge, actual or constructive, of any vicious propensity. This reasoning reaffirmed the principle that trespass by an animal imposes strict liability on the owner for resulting injuries. Reliance was placed on relevant Ceylon precedents and common law authorities, clarifying the distinctions between liability for wil