Shaw v McCreary
The case that I chose to write a judgment about for this project, Shaw v McCreary , 1 is one that has captivated me for a number of reasons. I must admit firstly that this case, on first glance, might not immediately appear to lend itself to the contemporary aims of the movement of ‘Earth jurisprudence’ in Australia. The case is more than 100 years old, Canadian, and relates to a narrow area of common law concerning civil liability for animals. It concerns the question of responsibility for injury inflicted by an escaping bear as between a husband and wife: the husband being the keeper of the bear and the wife being the owner of the property on which it was kept. All the relevant legal ‘persons’ in this case are therefore human, and the environmental implications are somewhat peripheral. Yet the meaning of the bear – as I would like to show in this case – plays a crucial role, and it does so in a way that makes us think slightly differently about the notion of ‘anthropocentrism’ in law.
Law as if Earth Really Mattered: The Wild Law Judgment Project
Law not elsewhere classified