Herbert v. Katzberg
| Decision Date | 17 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | 21031 |
| Citation | 177 N.W. 650,104 Neb. 395 |
| Parties | OSCAR S. HERBERT, APPELLEE, v. AUGUST KATZBERG, APPELLANT |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Adams county: WILLIAM C. DORSEY JUDGE. Affirmed on condition.
AFFIRMED ON CONDITION.
Walter M. Crow, for appellant.
James E. Addie, contra.
Plaintiff was bitten by a dog belonging to defendant. He charges that the dog was a vicious and dangerous animal; that it was permitted to run at large, although defendant well knew this fact and that he was in the habit of attacking human beings. The answer was a general denial.
We think the evidence sustains the verdict. The evidence shows that the plaintiff, who was a painter by trade, went to the defendant's house upon business. While approaching the house, three dogs ran out towards him, and he was bitten by a young shepherd dog belonging to defendant. Defendant's evidence tends to prove that the dog which inflicted the injuries belonged to one Abel, and was a brother to defendant's dog, but the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury as to the identity of the offending canine.
The doctor who attended plaintiff testified that there were four wounds made, the lower one much the deepest, being about a half to three-quarters of an inch in depth; another was very small and not so deep. There was also a wound that appeared as though something had penetrated the skin and torn its way out and left a ragged edge, and just above that there was a small wound just penetrating the skin. He opened the punctured one, cauterized all the wounds, packed the lower one with gauze and treated it with an antiseptic ointment. He also testified that there was danger of hydrophobia for two years from the time that a person is bitten by a dog which may be affected by rabies, and that plaintiff seemed very much concerned and worried for fear of this disease.
Did the defendant have reason to believe that the dog was liable to bite human beings? The evidence might be stronger upon this point. We think there is barely sufficient to justify a finding that defendant knew this characteristic of the dog but, taking it all together, we think it enough.
It is also argued that the verdict was arrived at by the quotient method, and is therefore void. The evidence taken upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial does not sustain this assignment. It is true that the jurors each wrote what he believed the amount of the verdict should be and that these sums were afterwards added and the average taken; but there is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial