Mailhot v. Crowe

• Decision Date: 29 January 1918
• Docket Number: 14192.
• Citation: 99 Wash. 623,170 P. 131
• Parties: MAILHOT et ux. v. CROWE et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

170 P. 131

99 Wash. 623

MAILHOT et ux. v. CROWE et ux.

No. 14192.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 29, 1918

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke Judge.

Action by Louis P. Mailhot and wife against Joseph J. Crowe and wife. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

D. R Glasgow, of Spokane, for appellants.

Lucius G. Nash and Frank C. Nash, both of Spokane, for respondents.

ELLIS C.J.

Action for damages for personal injuries to plaintiff wife inflicted by a dog owned and kept by defendants. The cause was tried to the court without a jury. The court found that the animal was 'a vicious, ill-tempered, and dangerous bulldog' that while the injured woman was passing along a public street near defendants' residence she was attacked by the dog suddenly and without notice, warning, or provocation thrown down, and severely bruised and contused on her stomach, breast, side, and hips, from which she suffered great pain in body and mind, and still suffers 'from nervous shock and injury'; that on several occasions before the time in question the dog had attacked other passers-by without cause or provocation; and that defendants had reason to know that the dog was dangerous, vicious, and ill-tempered, but nevertheless suffered the animal to go at large, unguarded and unrestrained save for a muzzle. Upon these findings of fact and appropriate conclusions of law the court awarded plaintiffs judgment against defendants for $250 and costs. Defendants appeal.

Every debatable question presented by this appeal is a question of fact. It is first contended that the dog was not shown to be vicious. To this the nature of the attack itself presents a sufficient answer. The victim, a woman 65 years old, supported her family by raising and selling garden produce which she peddled through the residence districts of Spokane by means of a pushcart. She and three other eyewitnesses testified that she was quietly pushing this cart along the public street in front of appellants' residence when the dog without any provocation and without warning rushed out, sprang upon her side and back, knocked her down, and as she attempted to rise sprang upon her and crushed her to the ground with his feet and head, only desisting when appellants' daughter came out, caught him by the collar or chain, and pulled him away. A reading of the evidence leaves scarcely a doubt that had the dog not been securely muzzled the old woman would have been lacerated by his teeth. This, coupled with evidence of earlier manifestations of ferocity and ill nature, amply sustains the court's finding that the dog was vicious.

It is next contended that appellants had no notice of the dog's vicious tendencies. There was evidence of several specific instances prior to the time in question when the dog without provocation had run after passers-by, growling in a threatening manner. In two instances at least members of appellants' family had interfered by catching the dog by the collar or chain and restraining him. There was also evidence that the animal had the reputation in the neighborhood of being vicious and dangerous, so much so that some of the neighbors habitually used other streets in order to avoid passing appellants' premises. It is...