Chickering v. Lord
| Decision Date | 16 March 1894 |
| Citation | 67 N.H. 555,32 A. 773 |
| Parties | CHICKERING v. LORD. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Cheshire county.
Action of debt on statute by one Chickering against one Lord for double damages for injuries committed by defendant's dogs. Prom a verdict for plaintiff, defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
July 11, 1892, while the plaintiff was riding in a sulky drawn by a three year old colt in the highway leading by the defendant's house, the colt became frightened, unmanageable, and ran away, whereby he and the colt were injured and his sulky and harness damaged. His evidence tended to show that the fright of the colt and consequent injuries were caused by the defendant's dogs barking at and biting the colt. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that the fright of the colt was not caused by the dogs; that the colt was skittish, unsafe, and took fright at some unknown object; that the action of the dogs was caused by its running, kicking, and plunging, and the plaintiff's calls of "Whoa"; and that the sulky was not a safe carriage. There was no other evidence tending to show that the plaintiff did anything to excite the dogs, or cause them to run after, bark at, or bite the colt. The jury were instructed (among other things) to return a verdict for the defendant unless they found that the fright of the colt and the plaintiff's injury were caused by the dogs. The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that, "as a rule, one cannot recover compensation for an injury occasioned by mere neglect of another which he might have avoided by the exercise of reasonable care, and this doctrine applies the same in connection with cases in reference to damages occasioned by dogs as in other cases of damages." The instruction was refused on the ground that it was not called for by the evidence, and the defendant excepted.
D. H. Woodward and E. L. Waterman, for plaintiff.
Batchelder & Faulkner, for defendant.
CARPENTER, J. "The owner or keeper of a dog shall forfeit to any person injured by it double the amount of damage sustained by him, to be recovered in an action of debt" Pub. St. c. 118, § 10. In actions on the statute no question of care or negligence on the part of the dog owner is involved. The utmost vigilance to prevent his dog from doing an injury affords him no defense. But he is not liable if the injured party by his negligence provokes, or by ordinary care could prevent, the action of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. Manchester St. Ry.
...Brember v. Jones, 67 N. H. 374, 376, 377, 30 Atl. 411, 26 L. R. A. 408; Brown v. Bank, 67 N. H. 549, 551, 39 Atl. 336; Chickering v. Lord, 67 N. H. 555, 557, 32 Atl. 773; Edgerly v. Railroad Co., 67 N. H. 312, 314-317, 36 Atl. 558. The question for the jury would have been whether or not th......
-
State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co.
...Trompen v. Verhage, 54 Mich. 304, 20 N. W. 53;Newton v. Gordon, 72 Mich. 642, 40 N. W. 921;Kerr v. O'Connor, 63 Pa. 341;Chickering v. Lord, 67 N. H. 555, 32 Atl. 773. Other similar legislation, founded in an exercise of the police power or justified by public policy, might be referred to; b......
-
State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Company
...v. Verhage, 54 Mich. 304, 20 N.W. 53; Newton v. Gordon, 72 Mich. 642, 40 N.W. 921; Kerr v. O'Connor, 63 Pa. St. 341; Chickering v. Lord, 67 N.H. 555, 32 A. 773. similar legislation, founded in an exercise of the police power or justified by public policy, might be referred to; but it is unn......
-
Wike v. Allison
...of action to a person whose injury is due wholly or in part to his own negligence. Quimby v. Woodbury, 63 N.H. 370, 374; Chickering v. Lord, 67 N.H. 555, 557, 32 A. 773. 'There is nothing peculiar about the doctrine of contributory negligence as applied in cases under this statute. It is th......