Hancock v. Finch

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JENNINGS, Justice.
• Citation: Hancock v. Finch, 126 Conn. 121, 9 A.2d 811 (Conn. 1939)
• Decision Date: 06 December 1939
• Parties: HANCOCK v. FINCH et al.

9 A.2d 811

126 Conn. 121

HANCOCK v. FINCH et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 6, 1939

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Patrick B O'Sullivan, Judge.

Action by Francis M. Hancock against William E. Finch and another for injuries caused by attack of dogs, alleged to have been owned and kept by defendants. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

No error.

Jackson Palmer and Thomas J. Lauricella, both of Greenwich for appellants.

Lorin W. Willis, of Bridgeport, for appellee.

Argued Before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.

JENNINGS, Justice.

The plaintiff was bitten by dogs owned by the defendants and secured a verdict. The defendants appeal from the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict and from the judgment, claiming error in the charge.

The complaint was in the usual form. The defendants filed a special defense to the effect that the plaintiff was the keeper of the dogs at the time the injuries were suffered. The plaintiff denied this special defense. The issue thus raised was not submitted to the jury. The assignments of error on the two appeals are up in various ways but all questions are included in this one ruling.

Since the fundamental question is whether the issue upon the defendants' special defense should have been submitted to the jury, the evidence should be considered from the standpoint most favorable to them. Plaintiff and defendants were neighbors and friends. The defendants owned three setters which were kept in a kennel and runway back of their house. The defendants planned to go to Boston for five days and asked the plaintiff to feed and water the dogs while they were away. The plaintiff agreed to do this as he had on previous occasions. He was instructed not to let the dogs out of the runway. On the second day after the defendants left the plaintiff went to the defendants' house and let the dogs out while he was preparing their food. While they were outside they attacked and injured, first the wife of the plaintiff and then the plaintiff. The question which arises on these facts under the ruling of the trial court is, could the jury have reasonably come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a keeper?

General Statutes, Cum.Supp.1935, § 1358c, defines keeper as ‘ any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog.’ To harbor means to afford lodging to, to shelter, to give a refuge to. Webster's New International Dictionary. McCarthy v. Daunis, 117 Conn. 307, 309, 167 A. 918; Lanna v. Konen, 119 Conn. 646, 650, 178 A. 425; 3 C.J. 106. It is clear that the plaintiff did not harbor the dogs in this sense. As to ‘ possession,’ there is no word more ambiguous in its meaning. National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 232 U.S. 58, 34 S.Ct....