Renner v. Canfield

• Citation: 30 N.W. 435,36 Minn. 90
• Parties: Adam J. Renner v. William F. Canfield
• Decision Date: 22 November 1886
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

30 N.W. 435

36 Minn. 90

Adam J. Renner v. William F. Canfield

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 22, 1886

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Douglas county, Collins, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after a verdict for plaintiff for $ 200.

Order reversed, and new trial ordered.

H Jenkins, for appellant, cited Phillips v. Dickerson, 85 Ill. 11, and Brown v. Chic., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 54 Wis 342, (11 N.W. 356.)

Clapp Woodard & Cowie, for respondent, cited Brown v. Chic. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 54 Wis. 342, (11 N.W. 356;) Hill v. Winsor, 118 Mass. 251; Lane v. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. 136; Wellington v. Downer K. Oil Co., 104 Mass. 64; Eten v. Luyster, 60 N.Y. 252.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

As the defendant and one Ward were driving along the highway in front of plaintiff's premises, a dog belonging to plaintiff's father (and which happened to be at that time on plaintiff's premises) rushed out upon the highway, and attacked Ward's dog. Defendant jumped out of his wagon with his gun, whereupon the dog of Renner, Sr., retreated towards or upon plaintiff's premises. While it was thus retreating, defendant fired at and killed it. This dog was accustomed to attack and worry the dogs of passing travellers on the highway, but there is no evidence that it ever attacked persons. When defendant shot the dog, he stood in the highway, about 175 feet from the plaintiff's house which was situated on elevated ground some distance back from the road. The dog, when shot, was some 150 feet from the house. Plaintiff's wife was standing at the pump, at or near the side of the house, and saw the defendant shoot, but defendant did not see her, and was not aware of her presence; the view from the highway to the house being more or less intercepted by intervening trees. Mrs. Renner, being, owing to her pregnancy, in a delicate state of health, and her nerves very sensitive, was so startled and frightened as to seriously affect her health. Her fright seems to have been largely caused, or at least greatly aggravated, by the mistaken impression that defendant aimed his gun towards her, when in fact it was aimed at right angles to the direction where she was standing. For the damages resulting from this injury to his wife's health plaintiff brings this action.

It is very difficult to determine, either from the complaint, or the evidence introduced, or from the charge of the court, the exact theory upon which this action was brought, tried, or submitted to the jury, -- whether the gravamen of defendant's alleged tort was the killing of the dog, or negligence in firing off a gun in dangerous proximity to a human residence. The court did, however expressly instruct the jury that the shooting of this dog by defendant was unlawful. He also instructed them that a person is liable for all the consequences "which flow...