Collins v. Otto, 20092
| Decision Date | 12 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 20092,20092 |
| Parties | David Ray COLLINS, a minor by his natural mother and next friend, Rachel Collins, Plaintiff in Error, v. Roy OTTO, Helen Otto, and Christeen Edstrom, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
McLean & McLean, Denver, Benjamin W. Fann, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
The parties appear here as in the trial court and will be so referred to or by name.
The plaintiff was a four year old child who, through his mother as next friend, brought suit against the defendants. He alleged defendants owned and wrongfully harbored a coyote, a wild animal of vicious propensities, and that on May 22, 1960, the child was attacked and bitten by the coyote and seriously injured.
Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendants, from which the plaintiff seeks reversal by writ of error.
In the trial of the case the testimony was not in any material aspect disputed. The Ottos admitted ownership of the animal for a period of about two years. They had fitted it with a collar and kept it on a chain about 15 ft. long. At the time of the attack on plaintiff, the coyote had recently been delivered of a litter and some of her puppies were still with her. Mr. Otto admitted that he gave one of the puppies to David to pet in the presence of the coyote.
Although the Ottos denied that they knew the coyote was vicious, they both testified that it was their custom not to let children approach it to pet it unless in their presence. Mrs. Otto testified that all of the neighborhood children had been warned not to go close to the coyote unless she or her husband were present. Mrs. Otto further testified that she worried about it and kept a very strong chain on the animal, and she did not tell the children that the coyote might hurt them but just warned the children to stay away unless she or her husband were present. Both were in the house and knew that David had been over for lunch with the Otto children and that all of the children were in the backyard and that David had a puppy to pet.
That the coyote attacked the boy is not disputed. An eye witness testified as to the viciousness of the attack, and the medical testimony established that lacerations of the forehead, eyelid, face, ears, and back of head were the result of the bites of the coyote. The injuries were quite extensive, leaving scars requiring at least two operations by a plastic surgeon.
The Ottos defended on the theory of the contributory negligence of this four year old child and on the basis that they had no prior knowledge of the viciousness of the animal.
A motion by plaintiff for a directed verdict in his favor was denied, the court ruling that the question of negligence of defendants in keeping the wild animal was a question for the jury. The court also ruled that the matter of contributory negligence was a legitimate defense to be submitted to the jury, and gave an instruction thereon.
Several grounds are assigned by plaintiff for reversal, but in view of our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tipton v. Town of Tabor
... ... Hays v. Miller, 150 Ala. 621, 43 So. 818 (1907); Collins v. Otto, 149 Colo. 489, 369 P.2d 564 (1962)(coyote, or "prairie wolf," Canis latrans ). Can ... ...
-
Clark v. Brings
... ... have indeed held animals Ferae naturae to include such worthless predators as coyotes, Collins v. Otto, 149 Colo. 489, 369 P.2d 564; and wolves, Hays v. Miller, 150 Ala. 621, 43 So. 818; but ... ...
-
Kaplan v. C LAZY U RANCH
...nature are vicious and unpredictable, and have done so without proof of the owners' knowledge of such propensities. Collins v. Otto, 149 Colo. 489, 369 P.2d 564 (1962). Strict liability also has been applied to owners of a domestic animal proven to be vicious where the owners were aware of ......
-
Frobig v. Gordon
...(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (landlord-tenant relationship insufficient to impose "keeper" liability for elephant attack); Collins v. Otto, 149 Colo. 489, 369 P.2d 564 (1962) (no case against landlord where tenant's coyote attacked We do not believe that a separate rule of law for cases involving......
-
History Uprooted: Georgia Applies Apportionment to Strict Liability Claims
...2000)).21. Kenneth S. Abraham, Strict Liability in Negligence, 61 Depaul L. Rev. 271, 271 (2012).22. Id. at 274.23. See Collins v. Otto, 369 P.2d 564, 566 (Colo. 1962) (stating that the keeping of a wild animal is unjustified).24. See Charles E Cantu, Distinguishing the Concept of Strict Li......