Hahnke v. Friederich
| Citation | 35 N.E. 487,140 N.Y. 224 |
| Parties | HAHNKE v. FRIEDERICH. |
| Decision Date | 28 November 1893 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, fifth department.
Action by Lena Hahnke, by guardian, against Adam Friederich, to recover for personal injuries inflicted by defendant's dog. From a judgment of the general term (22 N. Y. Supp. 1120) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Fanning & Williams, (Charles M. Williams, of counsel,) for appellant.
Norris Bull, for respondent.
The plaintiff, a girl of about seven years of age, recovered a verdict of $500 against the defendant for personal injuries inflicted upon her, as she claims, by a vicious mastiff dog kept by the defendant. The testimony showed that the plaintiff lived with her parents in a house rented to them by the defendant, and in the rear of the defendant's residence and barn, no fence separating the lots. The defendant was a mason and contractor, keeping several horses and large quantities of tools and other property in the barn; and he procured the dog, about a month before the date of the injury to the plaintiff, to guard and defend this property in the barn, where he was usually kept chained and muzzled, but escaped from the barn on the occasion in question. On the 3d of April, 1892, the girl, having returned from school, was passing around to the rear of the house, upon a board walk that extended around the house for the use of the inmates. This walk, extending along the side of the house to the rear corner, turns as the house turns towards the kitchen, forming an angle. The dog was lying near the kitchen steps, and could not be seen by the girl until the corner was turned. As the plaintiff turned the corner, the dog jumped at her, threw her down, and bit her in the face and around the neck, inflicting injuries of quite a serious nature, and disfiguring her face and features to some extent. The question in the case arises upon an exception to the denial of a motion for a nonsuit on the ground that the proof failed to show knowledge by the defendant of the vicious propensities of the dog. There was no question raised as to the sufficiency of the proof to warrant a finding that he was vicious in fact, and undoubtedly there was evidence upon that question for the consideration of the jury. It is therefore unnecessary to refer to any other question, save the ruling of the learned trial judge refusing to grant the motion for a nonsuit. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. Jordan Marsh Co.
...it tied or chained has been held to be some evidence of its owner's knowledge of its dangerous propensities (see Hahnke v. Friederich, 140 N. Y. 224, 226,35 N. E. 487; compare Cruickshank v. Brockton Agricultural Society, 260 Mass. 283, 157 N. E. 357), but here there was no evidence of rest......
-
Filer v. Adams
...N.Y.S.2d 164, 910 N.E.2d 993 [2009];Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444, 446, 775 N.Y.S.2d 205, 807 N.E.2d 254 [2004];Hahnke v. Friederich, 140 N.Y. 224, 227, 35 N.E. 487 [1893] ...
-
Andrews v. Jordan Marsh Co.
... ... be some evidence of its owner's knowledge of its ... dangerous propensities (see Hahnke v. Friederich, 140 N.Y ... 224, 226; compare Cruickshank v. Brockton Agricultural ... Society, 260 Mass. 283), but here there was no evidence ... ...
-
I. A. v. Mejia
...issue of fact as to whether the defendants knew or should have known that their dog had vicious propensities (see Hahnke v. Friederich, 140 N.Y. 224, 227, 35 N.E. 487 ; Francis v. Becker, 50 A.D.3d 1507, 1507–1508, 857 N.Y.S.2d 824 ; Parente v. Chavez, 17 A.D.3d 648, 649, 793 N.Y.S.2d 517 ;......