de Gray v. Murray
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
| Writing for the Court | GUMMERE, C. J. |
| Citation | 55 A. 237,69 N.J.L. 458 |
| Parties | DE GRAY v. MURRAY. |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1903 |
69 N.J.L. 458
DE GRAY
v.
MURRAY.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
June 15, 1903.
Error to Circuit Court, Hudson County.
Action by Ella De Gray against Donald Murray. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Argued February term, 1903, before GUMMERE. C. J., and FORT, HENDRICKSON, and PITNEY. JJ.
Charles W. Parker, for plaintiff in error.
Cowles & Carey, for defendant in error.
GUMMERE, C. J. This was an action to recover for injuries resulting to the plaintiff in error (the plaintiff below) from the bite of a dog, owned by the defendant in error, which attacked her while she was walking on the public street. At the close of the testimony the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff seeks to review the judgment entered upon that verdict.
It is the settled law that the owner of a dog will not be held responsible for injuries resulting to another person from its bite, unless it be shown that the dog had previously bitten some one else, or was vicious, to the knowledge of the owner. Smith v. Donohue, 49 N. J. Law, 548, 10 Atl. 150, 60 Am. Rep. 652, and cases cited. In the present case, although the dog bad been kept on the defendant's premises for several years, and must have been well known in the neighborhood, the only evidence tending to show viciousness on its part, prior to the time when the plaintiff was bitten by it, was that, on two or three occasions, it bad "flown at" a policeman whose duty required him to daily pass by the premises of the defendant; and that, on another occasion, it had "sprung at" a boy who was passing by along the street, and made two little holes, or spots, upon his leg. It is admitted that the policeman was never bitten, and it is left in uncertainty whether the marks on the boy's leg were made by the teeth of the dog or by its claws. Assuming that this evidence, meager as it is, was sufficient to make the character of the dog a jury question, it was necessary, as has already been stated, in order to fix upon the defendant liability for the plaintiff's injury, to show that he had knowledge of his dog's vicious propensity. But the case utterly fails in this regard. So far as the occurrence in which the boy figured is concerned, the defendant heard from his wife that she had been told by the boy's mother that the dog bad jumped upon her son, but had merely scratched his leg. The experience of the policeman he never heard of at all.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeRobertis by DeRobertis v. Randazzo
...for dog owner where trial court refused to charge that the statute created strict liability); Emmons, supra. But see DeGray v. Murray, 69 N.J.L. 458, 55 A. 237 (Sup.Ct.1903) (defendant who exercised due care in controlling dog not liable for dog having bitten plaintiff, even if defendant kn......
-
Tanga v. Tanga, No. A--1116
...An aberrant note was introduced by the decision by the former Supreme Court, per Chief Justice Gummere, in DeGray v. Murray, 69 N.J.L. 458, 55 A. 237 (Sup.Ct.1903), which held that notwithstanding the owner's knowledge of his dog's viciousness he could not be held liable where he had exerci......
-
Jannuzzelli v. Wilkins
...supra, 94 N.J.Super. at 8-9, 226 A.2d at 724) The one evidently aberrant view was expressed by Chief Justice Gummere in DeGray v. Murray, 69 N.J.L. 458, 55 A. 237 (Sup.Ct.1903). In that case an action was brought to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff from being bitten on a public s......
-
Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co., No. A--509
...Although the Rylands doctrine has not been adopted in New Jersey, Marshall v. Welwood, 38 N.J.L. 339 (Sup.Ct.1876); De Gray v. Murray, 69 N.J.L. 458, 55 A. 237 (Sup.Ct.1903); Smith v. Okerson, 8 N.J.Super. 560, 564, 73 A.2d 857 (Ch.Div.1950); Prosser, Torts (2d ed. 1955), § 59, pp. 332--33,......
-
DeRobertis by DeRobertis v. Randazzo
...for dog owner where trial court refused to charge that the statute created strict liability); Emmons, supra. But see DeGray v. Murray, 69 N.J.L. 458, 55 A. 237 (Sup.Ct.1903) (defendant who exercised due care in controlling dog not liable for dog having bitten plaintiff, even if defendant kn......
-
Tanga v. Tanga, No. A--1116
...An aberrant note was introduced by the decision by the former Supreme Court, per Chief Justice Gummere, in DeGray v. Murray, 69 N.J.L. 458, 55 A. 237 (Sup.Ct.1903), which held that notwithstanding the owner's knowledge of his dog's viciousness he could not be held liable where he had exerci......
-
Jannuzzelli v. Wilkins
...supra, 94 N.J.Super. at 8-9, 226 A.2d at 724) The one evidently aberrant view was expressed by Chief Justice Gummere in DeGray v. Murray, 69 N.J.L. 458, 55 A. 237 (Sup.Ct.1903). In that case an action was brought to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff from being bitten on a public s......
-
Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co., No. A--509
...Although the Rylands doctrine has not been adopted in New Jersey, Marshall v. Welwood, 38 N.J.L. 339 (Sup.Ct.1876); De Gray v. Murray, 69 N.J.L. 458, 55 A. 237 (Sup.Ct.1903); Smith v. Okerson, 8 N.J.Super. 560, 564, 73 A.2d 857 (Ch.Div.1950); Prosser, Torts (2d ed. 1955), § 59, pp. 332--33,......