Hays v. Anchors
| Decision Date | 07 June 1944 |
| Docket Number | 30527. |
| Citation | 30 S.E.2d 646,71 Ga.App. 280 |
| Parties | HAYS v. ANCHORS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robt. B. Blackburn and Carl F. Hutcheson, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Lindsay Lozier & Bell and Paul L. Lindsay, Jr., all of Atlanta for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. A dog is a domestic animal (Wilcox v. State, 101 Ga 563, 28 S.E. 981, 39 L.R.A. 709); and this is true regardless of its breed. Under the provisions of the Code, § 105-110 which is but a restatement of the common law, to support an action for damages for injuries sustained by being bitten by a dog, it is necessary to show that the dog was vicious, and that the owner had knowledge of this fact. Harvey v. Buchanan, 121 Ga. 384, 49 S.E. 281. It is not sufficient to allege that the "defendant knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known" the dog was vicious, but facts showing knowledge, either actual or constructive, must be alleged. Langford v Eskedor, 30 Ga.App. 799, 119 S.E. 431. In the present case, the petition alleged the dog was a German Police dog, and was of a vicious species of animal life, and was known to the public as being of a vicious species, and that this fact should have put the defendant on notice that the dog was vicious; that the dog had been recently treated for some unknown disease, and operated upon in a dog hospital, and that the operation caused an abnormal condition to exist on its head, and that after the operation the defendant allowed the dog to be carried to her home for the purpose of being cared for; that the dog was a menace to those coming in contact with it; that by reason of the facts alleged "the defendant knew, or ought to have known that the dog was vicious." It is nowhere alleged that the dog had ever made an attack on anyone prior to the time it injured the plaintiff, or that it had ever given the defendant cause to suspect that it might be vicious, except that it belonged to the breed of dogs known as German Police dogs. It is not alleged that the defendant was the owner of the dog, or that she ever had the dog under her personal supervision or control. It not appearing from the allegations of the petition, as amended, that the defendant had knowledge that the dog was vicious prior to the time the plaintiff was injured, the petition did not set out a cause of action and the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer thereto. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chandler v. Gately, s. 44075
...650. This rule applies where a servant of the owner of the animal is injured as well as where others are injured by it. Hays v. Anchors, 71 Ga.App. 280(2), 30 S.E.2d 646. If this is not to be done, the practical effect is to eliminate the summary judgment statute except in those types of ca......
-
Sanders v. Bowen
...would be his knowledge, at least constructively. See Flowers v. Flowers, 118 Ga.App. 85(2), 162 S.E.2d 818 (1968); Hays v. Anchors, 71 Ga.App. 280(1), 30 S.E.2d 646 (1944). In support of this theory, plaintiffs attempted to introduce testimony that defendant's sons told them that the dog ha......
-
Norman v. Norman
...allegations in this case are that the dog was vicious and dangerous and that the defendant knew it. The allegations in Hays v. Anchors, 71 Ga.App. 280, 30 S.E.2d 646 are quite different. It was not there alleged that the defendant actually knew the nature of the dog but only that the defend......
-
Malloy v. Cauley
...appellee to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Gordon v. Dawson, 146 Ga.App. 784, 247 S.E.2d 596 (1978); Hays v. Anchors, 71 Ga.App. 280(1), 30 S.E.2d 646 (1944). However, since the trial court considered the deposition of appellant in making its determinations, we cannot see how it c......