Beckert v. Doble

• Decision Date: 30 July 1926
• Citation: 134 A. 154,105 Conn. 88
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BECKERT v. DOBLE (TWO CASES).

134 A. 154

105 Conn. 88

BECKERT v. DOBLE (TWO CASES).

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 30, 1926

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Leonard J. Nickerson Judge.

Separate actions by Anna T. Beckert and by William E. Beckert, husband and wife, against Frances Doble for personal injuries to wife inflicted by defendant's dog. From the judgments for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. No error in case of Anna T Beckert; error in case of William E. Beckert, and new trial ordered, unless remittitur be filed.

Edwin S. Pickett, of New Haven, for appellant.

William L. Hadden and David E. Fitzgerald, both of New Haven for appellees.

HINMAN, J.

These actions were brought under section 3404 of the General Statutes, which provides that--

" When any dog shall do any damage, either to the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper * * * shall be liable for such damage."

The complaint in each action alleged that the defendant's dog attacked Mrs. Beckert and knocked her to the ground, whereby she suffered injuries, and her testimony was that as she was passing the defendant's house she felt something hit her, turned and saw the defendant's dog " upon" her left side; that she lost her balance " with the weight of him," fell, and became unconscious, sustaining injuries which included a broken hip. The defendant claimed that her dog was not the one which jumped against Mrs. Beckert.

The reasons of appeal are substantially identical in both cases, and the first relates to the denial of the motion to set aside each verdict as against the evidence, contrary to law, and excessive, and because the statute is unconstitutional. The evidence fully justified the jury in holding that the act of the dog in jumping against Mrs. Beckert was the direct cause of her fall and injuries, and there is no occasion to consider, as the appellant urges, whether recovery may be had, under the statute, for injury not resulting directly from the act of the dog, but caused by fright occasioned by such act. The constitutional validity of the statute is unquestionable. Grissell v. Housatonic R. Co., 54 Conn. 447, 461, 9 A. 137, 1 Am.St.Rep. 138.

As to the amount of damages awarded the plaintiff Anna T. Beckert: She sustained a fractured hip, entailing a long period of disability and suffering and resulting in a permanent shortening of her right leg, eversion of the foot, and limitation of motion of the right hip, as well as impairment in health. The evidence was such as to warrant the jury in finding that there was no lack of care in securing competent medical and surgical attention and in complying with the prescribed treatment. Flint v. Connecticut Hassam Pavement Co., 92 Conn. 576, 103 A. 840; Ross v. Stamford, 88 Conn. 260, 91 A. 201. The amount ($2,500) awarded to her was not excessive.

In the case of William E. Beckert, both parties agree that the amount of the verdict, $437.50, consisted of $147 for doctors and medical supplies, and $26 per week (testified to as a reasonable price for the services of a practical nurse) for the 10 weeks during which, first a daughter for 5 weeks, and then the husband for 5 weeks, cared for Mrs. Beckert remaining away from their employment for the purpose, plus interest to date of judgment. In addition to his expenditures for doctors and medicines, he is entitled to reimbursement for his own time and services devoted to the care of his wife, to the extent of the reasonable worth of his services so rendered, not exceeding the amount for which he could have hired reasonably competent attendance by others. When the injuries to the wife are such as to render it reasonably necessary that the husband provide her with care, and he sacrifices his own earnings from his employment in order to personally care for her, the loss of the pecuniary value of his services is as much a legitimate...