Trisuzzi’s case is analogous to Appleton’s facts with respect to the unreasonable harm and possibility to avoid it which was negligently misused.
As well as in Trisuzzi’s case, the dog biting was the cause of injuries and emotional distress of people closely related to the victim (Trisuzzi). John Trisuzzi, as well as Amanda Appleton, was a close person to the witness of the dog attack, therefore the latter could suffer serious moral and emotional distress caused by seeing the attack of a close person. Moreover, the proof of the fact that Sarah and Jerome Eyrich were “closely related” people to the victims of dog attacks, namely Amanda and John, is their long-lasting friendly relationships and, in Sarah’s case, her being under the legal care of Amanda’s mother. Sarah lived in Amanda’s family for 8 years and was like a sister to the latter. Similarly, John was considered by Jerom’s parents to be his “surrogate father” due to his affection and care of his younger friend. However, this kind of relationship is not admitted as “closely related” because only family and marriage ties are considered as such by law (Id.).
The similarity of both cases lies in the fact that dogs were to be looked after by their owners as their uncontrolled walking can bring unexpected and often harmful results which are people biting. In both cases, dogs, irrespective of their kind, were rather aggressive despite the fact that their owners testified to be sure of their peaceful behavior. However, the dogs should be controlled by their owners and tied with leashes when in public places.
These similarities put the dogs in both situations in the group of dangerous animals that are usually not treated as possible injurers but are to be looked after.
Nelson’s case is distinguishable from Appleton’s facts with respect to the different causes of injuries and following emotional distress and different relations of the plaintiffs to each other.
As contrasted to Nelson’s case, the cause of Amanda’s injuries and following Sarah’s emotional distress was caused by dog biting. In Nelson’s case, however, the major reason for the complaint of the plaintiffs was the motor vehicle accident that happened to Stephanie Nelson while she was driving the vehicle owned by her fiancé Lawrence Yovino (Nelson). Nelson’s fiancé claimed to witness his vehicle damaged and his fiancé seriously injured in the accident. What distinguishes it from Appleton’s case is the fact that Nelson and Yovino’s being “closely related” is proven by the law according to which close family relations, engagement, marriage are considered as such. Moreover, Yovino was proved to give his right kidney to Nelson some time ago and this served as another evidence of their close relations (Id.), while Sarah’s only prove was the testament of her parents that made Mrs. Appleton her legal guardian.
The difference of the cases lays in the fact that dog biting and road accidents belong to different areas of law and can not be considered as similar. Dog biting is the result of a dog’s aggressive reaction and lack of owner’s control over the dog, while road accidents, especially if the injuries were not serious, can be referred to as human negligence, which, however, can not be resolved in plaintiff’s favor.
Thus, it is likely, that Sarah will not be acknowledged as the “closely related” person to Amanda based on their ties and relations because current legislation admits only marriage relations as reasons for calling people “closely related”. Referring to the serious injuries of Amanda, the court can only extend the definition of “closely related”.