Johnston v. Ohls

• Decision Date: 17 July 1969
• Docket Number: No. 39630,39630
• Parties: William R. JOHNSTON and Willamay Johnston, his wife, and Willamay Johnston as Guardian ad Litem for Johanna Marie Johnston, a minor, Appellants, v. Victor OHLS and Jessie D. Ohls, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Respondents.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 398

76 Wn.2d 398

457 P.2d 194

William R. JOHNSTON and Willamay Johnston, his wife, and

Willamay Johnston as Guardian ad Litem for Johanna

Marie Johnston, a minor, Appellants, v. Victor OHLS and Jessie D. Ohls, husband and wife, and the

marital community composed thereof, Respondents.

No. 39630.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2.

July 17, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1969.

Helsell, Paul, Fetterman, Todd & Hokanson, William A. Helsell, Arthur L. Davies, Mullavey, Hageman, Treece & Sayre, Thomas Treece, Seattle, for appellants.

Anderson, Hunter & Carlson, M. J. Carlson, Everett, for respondents.

NEILL, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from a jury verdict and judgment for defendants in a tort action for injuries resulting from a motorbike accident allegedly caused by a dog owned by defendants.

The accident occurred on August 26, 1965. Plaintiff William R. Johnston was driving a Honda motorbike. He was proceeding down Filbert Drive in a rural residential area of Snohomish County with his little daughter riding on the gas tank in front of him. The defendants' Cocker spaniel-Welsh terrier dog ran out into the street from defendants' yard. The dog and motorbike collided. Mr. Johnston and his daughter were each injured and the dog was killed.

The testimony is in some dispute as to whether the dog was actually attacking the plaintiffs, chasing the motorbike, or merely crossing the street. The previous temperament and disposition of the dog is also disputed, but there was evidence that it had previously bitten neighborhood children and had occasionally chased bicycles and motorcycles in front of defendants' home.

Plaintiffs allege three claims: (1) for injuries suffered by Mr. Johnston who eventually had a leg amputated due to a post-operative infection; (2) for injuries to the little girl; and (3) for damages to the motorbike--this claim being assigned to plaintiffs by the owner of the motorbike. The minor plaintiff was represented by a guardian ad litem at trial.

Plaintiffs first assign error to the failure of the trial court to specifically withdraw the issue of contributory negligence from the jury. Defendants' counsel made mention of this defense in his opening statement and during trial elicited testimony which was obviously directed at the question of whether Mr. Johnston was handling the motorbike properly or could have avoided the accident. Although the trial court deleted all reference to contributory negligence from his instructions, plaintiffs argue that this defense should have been affirmatively withdrawn by instruction. The trial court considered this argument on plaintiffs' motion for new trial and rejected it. Defendants make a two-pronged argument on this point: first, that contributory negligence was a proper issue involved in the case; and second, that even if contributory negligence was not a proper issue, the court adequately withdrew it and the jury was entitled to consider plaintiff's handling of the motorbike under the question of proximate cause.

Common law liability ¹ for injuries caused by vicious or dangerous dogs is based upon a form of strict liability. One who keeps a dog, who knows or reasonably should know that the dog has vicious or dangerous propensities likely to cause the injury complained of, has a duty to kill the animal or confine it. Any injury caused by such an animal subjects the owner to prima facie liability without proof of negligence. Robinson v. Marino, 3 Wash. 434, 28 P. 752 (1892); Mailhot v. Crowe, 99 Wash. 623, 170 P. 131 (1918); Shelby v. Seung, 144 Wash. 317, 257 P. 838 (1927); Brewer v. Furtwangler, 171 Wash. 617, 18 P.2d 837 (1933). See Prosser, Torts 510, 513--517 (3d ed. 1964); Annot., 66 A.L.R.2d 916 (1959).

The courts in various jurisdictions appear to be about evenly divided upon the issue of whether contributory negligence is a defense to this common law liability. See 66 A.L.R.2d, Supra, 924--939. However, we are already aligned with those courts which hold that contributory negligence is not a defense in a common law action based upon scienter. Brewer v. Furtwangler, Supra, 171 Wash. 620, 18 P.2d 838:

The terms 'negligence' and 'contributory negligence' are employed, for convenience and not in a strictly legal sense, in actions of the class in which the case at bar falls. The ground of liability in an action for injuries caused by a vicious dog is not negligence in the ordinary sense; hence, in its ordinary meaning, contributory negligence is not a defense.

The reasoning in Brewer was supported by the following quotation found in Clinkenbeard v. Reinert, 284 Mo. 569, 577, 225 S.W. 667, 669, 13 A.L.R. 485 (1920):

'Such an animal is a nuisance, and the keeping of it after notice of its ferocious propensity is so wrongful that the owner is chargeable for any neglect to keep it with such care that it can not do any damage to any person who without essential fault is injured by it.'

We find no reason now to depart from our holding in Brewer, supra. A vicious, malicious, or dangerous dog is just as much a menace and a nuisance in a suburban neighborhood now as it was 35 years ago. There are strong policy reasons supporting the imposition of strict liability upon one who keeps such a hazard to passers-by.

Of course if plaintiff's own actions comprise such 'essential fault' as to constitute the proximate cause of his injury, or if plaintiff provoked the animal, such behavior might constitute a defense. See Muller v. McKesson, 73 N.Y. 195, 29 Am.Rep. 123 (1878): 66 A.L.R.2d 916, 931, Supra. But such behavior can and should be distinguished from that which merely contributes to the accident in the usual negligence concept.

Defendants contend that, in addition to the common law ground for recovery based upon scienter, plaintiffs alleged negligence in their complaint, and that contributory negligence is a defense for that cause of action. Even though negligence was alleged in the complaint, the jury was instructed that plaintiffs were not to recover absent a showing that defendants knew or should have known of their dog's vicious tendencies. Defendants do not object to this instruction. This requirement of knowledge or scienter is the only prerequisite to the application of common law strict liability. Therefore, even though plaintiffs alleged negligence, they could only have recovered by proving the elements of a common law action based on scienter--to which contributory negligence is not a defense.

Contributory negligence was mentioned in the opening statement. Testimony was also elicited during trial concerning Mr. Johnston's operation of the motorbike. The admissibility of this testimony is not here challenged and we express no opinion as to whether it was admissible on the issue of proximate cause. However, the fact remains that defendants interjected an improper defense into this case in their opening statement and later introduced testimony which would support that defense.

Defendants received the benefit of the statement of counsel in his opening statement and of considerable testimony relating to plaintiff Mr. Johnston's care and manner of operation of the motorbike prior to the time in trial when the court properly ruled that contributory negligence was not in issue. The jury should have been specifically instructed that it was not to consider such evidence as a defense of the negligence of the operator of the motorbike. The prejudice to the claim of the plaintiff daughter, to whom any negligence of the father was not imputed, is even more apparent.

We have frequently held under similar circumstances that an instruction specifically withdrawing the defense from the jury's consideration is both necessary and proper. See Blomskog, Erickson & Cotton v. Seattle, 107 Wash. 471, 182 P. 571 (1919); Adamson v. Traylor, 60 Wash.2d 332, 373 P.2d 961 (1962). The trial court's failure to affirmatively withdraw the issue of contributory negligence was error entitling plaintiffs to a new trial.

Plaintiffs also assign error to the failure of the trial court to give their proposed instruction No. 9 which read:

In considering whether defendants knew or should have known facts sufficient to put them on notice that their dog might injure other persons, you are instructed that the injury complained of does not have to be the exact same injury that the dog has inflicted before in order to hold the defendants liable. It is sufficient if the plaintiffs were injured by the conduct of a dog the defendants knew was dangerous or vicious.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants' arguments plus the trial court's instruction No. 13 misled the jury into understanding that the dog's previous manifestations of viciousness must have been nearly identical to those causing the accident before knowledge of viciousness will result in liability to the owner.

Instruction No. 13 reads:

An owner of a dog is not liable for injuries caused by it unless: the dog has a vicious propensity or dangerous tendency as those terms are herein defined; the owner knows or by the exercise of reasonable care should know of the same; and the vicious propensity or dangerous tendency is similar to the type involved in the accident of which the plaintiff complains.

Therefore, unless you find that: the defendant's dog, Timmy, possessed vicious propensities or dangerous tendencies that the defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of such propensities; and the propensities were of the type which, in the light of ordinary human experience, would be likely to cause the type of accident which plaintiff complains of, then your verdict must be for the defendants and against the plaintiff.

This instruction is not challenged on appeal; so the question is whether plaintiffs' proposed instruction No. 9 should have also been given.

Plaintiffs correctly point out that it is not necessary for a dog to have previously bitten someone before its owner will be charged...