Gagnon v. Frank
| Decision Date | 01 November 1927 |
| Citation | 139 A. 373 |
| Parties | GAGNON v. FRANK. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Sawyer, Judge.
Action by Lena M. Gagnon against Maude M. Frank. Verdict was directed for defendant, and case transferred. Judgment for defendant.
Case, under P. L. c. 150, § 24, to recover for personal injuries occasioned the plaintiff by the defendant's dog. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
William H. Sleeper, of Exeter, for plaintiff.
Sewall & Waldron and A. E. Sewall, all of Portsmouth, for defendant.
On June 6, 1926, the plaintiff was engaged to look after the defendant's premises in Exeter during the defendant's absence abroad. There were three dogs on the premises, and it was one of the plaintiff's express duties to care for them. On August 2, while attending to this duty, she was bitten on the hand by one of the dogs.
The statute under which the action is brought provides that "every owner or keeper of a dog shall forfeit, to any person injured by it, double the amount of the damage sustained by him." Pub. Laws 1926, c. 150, § 24. This statute is to be given a reasonable interpretation. Quimby v. Woodbury, 63 N. H. 370, 374. Its purpose is to obviate the difficulty of showing the owner's knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog as required at common law. Orne v. Roberts, 51 N. H. 110; Mclntire v. Plaisted, 57 N. H. 606, 609. But it does not confer a right of action on all persons indiscriminately. One whose injury is due wholly or in part to his own fault cannot recover. Quimby v. Woodbury, supra; Chiekering v. Lord, 67 N. H. 555, 557, 32 A. 773; Smith v. Hallahan, 75 N. H. 534, 535, 78 A. 122. It is expressly provided that there shall be no liability where the injured party is engaged in the commission of a trespass or a tort, and the right of action does not inure to either the owner or keeper of the dog. P. L. c. 150, § 23. This section of the statute, so far as it applies to the present controversy, is as follows:
"Any person to whom * * * damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him shall be entitled to recover such damage of the person who owns or keeps the dog."
The plaintiff understood that she was hired to "take charge of the house and care for the dogs." She testified: "I had to take care of the dogs if I stayed there." She was not, as her counsel argues, merely a servant working on the premises where the owner of the dog harbored it. The dog was in her possession and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandercar v. David
...A. 381, 61 L.R.A. 351; Schraeder v. Koopman, 190 Wis. 459, 209 N.W. 714; Hughey v. Fergus County, 98 Mont. 98, 37 P.2d 1035; Gagnon v. Frank, 83 N.H. 122, 139 A. 373; Colby v. Lee, 83 N.H. 303, 142 A. 115, 688; Sawyer v. Lund, 231 Iowa 1393, 4 N.W.2d 408; Terpstra v. Schinkel, 235 Iowa 547,......
-
Grummel v. Decker
...part of the plaintiff is a defense. One who suffers an injury either wholly or in part due to his own fault cannot recover. Gagnon v. Frank, 83 N.H. 122, 139 A. 373;Brown v. Moyer, 186 Iowa 1322, 171 N.W. 297. One who is guilty of negligence which contributes to the injury suffered may not ......
-
Blais v. Town of Goffstown, 79-046
...regardless of the conduct of the party injured, . . . would be unreasonable." Quimby v. Woodbury, 63 N.H. at 374. And in Gagnon v. Frank, 83 N.H. 122, 139 A. 373 (1927), the court stated that RSA 466:19 and :20 "(do) not confer a right of action on all persons indiscriminately." Id. at 123,......
-
Trager v. Thor
...and undertook to control his actions, then he was the keeper of the dog...." [Id., 66 Mich. at p. 521, 33 N.W. 410.]8 In Gagnon v. Frank, 83 N.H. 122, 139 A. 373 (1927), a house sitter who was expressly required to care for the premises owner's three dogs while the owner was abroad was foun......