Dalton v. Dean
| Decision Date | 17 February 1940 |
| Parties | DALTON v. DEAN. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Phillips & Hale, of Rogersville, for plaintiff in error.
Eastman Portrum, of Rogersville, for defendant in error.
This suit was brought by J. C. Dean as next friend for his sons to recover damages for the negligent killing of a collie dog owned by the boys. Defendant Dalton ran his automobile over the dog and killed him. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $25 in the circuit court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and defendant has filed a petition for certiorari.
The petition for certiorari and assignments of error apparently concede that there was material evidence tending to show the defendant was guilty of some negligence in the operation of his car. The dog was killed crossing one of the streets in Rogersville along which defendant was proceeding in his automobile.
The defendant insists that the owners of the dog were guilty of such contributory negligence as to preclude any recovery and as a basis for this argument defendant relies on section 5086 of the Code. This section is as follows:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to allow a dog belonging to him, or under his control, or that may be habitually found on premises occupied by him, or immediately under his control, to go upon the premises of another, or upon a highway or upon a public road or street; provided, however, that this and the following section shall not apply to a dog on a hunt or chase, or on the way to or from a hunt or chase, nor to a dog guarding or driving stock, or on the way for that purpose, nor to a dog being moved from one place to another, by a person owning or controlling a dog, but the foregoing exemptions shall not apply unless all damages done by dogs therein exempted, to the person or property of another, shall be paid or tendered to the person so damaged, or to his agent, within thirty days after the damage is done."
The evidence shows that the boys owning the dog had taken him across the street to the yard of a neighbor, where the three were engaged in catching grasshoppers. This project was undertaken to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Randle v. Payne
...have a new statute making it 'unlawful' for stock to go at large, i. e., unattended, by design or neglect of the owner, Dalton v. Dean, 175 Tenn. 620, 136 S.W.2d 721, Leavenworth, T. & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Forbes, 37 Kan. 445, 15 P. 595, Elliott v. Kitchens, 111 Ala. 546, 20 So. 366, 33 L.R.A. ......
-
Provence v. Williams
...which it is based have never been understood as making an outlaw of a dog accompanying its master along the highways.' (Dalton vs. Dean, 175 Tenn. 620 (136 S.W.2d 721)).' A review of the evidence on the issue shows that a short time before the accident occurred on May 18, 1968, the plaintif......
- Dalton v. Dean
-
Alex v. Armstrong
...only conclude that by permitting the dog this freedom of action the defendants allowed the dog to be 'at large'. In Dalton v. Dean, 175 Tenn. 620, 623, 136 S.W.2d 721, 722, this Court had occasion to construe the statute and 'To be at large means to be free and unrestrained. A dog is quite ......