Marshall v. Person
Decision Date | 23 October 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 70766,70766 |
Citation | 176 Ga.App. 542,336 S.E.2d 380 |
Parties | MARSHALL v. PERSON. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Antonio L. Thomas, Atlanta, for appellant.
Robert B. Hocutt, Atlanta, for appellee.
J. Robert Marshall brought suit against Ruby Person seeking damages for personal injuries incurred when Person's dog jumped on Marshall causing him to lose his balance and fall. Person moved for summary judgment on the basis of her affidavit denying any knowledge that prior to the incident in question the dog had jumped on or lunged at anyone else and caused them to fall. The trial court granted Person's motion for summary judgment and Marshall appeals.
Appellant contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee because a genuine issue of material fact exists whether appellee had prior knowledge of the dog's alleged propensity to jump on or lunge at others. In support of this argument, appellant points to appellee's deposition in which she stated she was aware that the dog would jump playfully on appellee and her daughter.
" Flowers v. Flowers, 118 Ga.App. 85(2), 162 S.E.2d 818 (1968). See also Parsons v. Ponder, 161 Ga.App. 723, 724(1), 288 S.E.2d 751 (1982). In order to constitute notice to an owner or keeper of an animal's vicious or dangerous nature, there should be an incident which would put a prudent man on notice to anticipate the event which occurred. Sutton v. Sutton, 145 Ga.App. 22, 25(1), 243 S.E.2d 310 (1978).
The evidence shows that the dog, owned by appellee and fed by appellee and her daughter, had on occasion jumped up on appellee and her daughter in greeting. The evidence is uncontroverted that appellee had never known the dog to jump up on any other family member living at appellee's residence or jump up on any strangers. The evidence is further uncontroverted that appellee had never known the dog to cause anyone to fall.
Even construing the evidence, as we must, in favor of appellant as nonmovant on summary judgment, see Burnette Ford v. Hayes, 227 Ga. 551, 181 S.E.2d 866 (1971), we find no error in the trial court's grant of summary judgment to appellee. Fitzpatrick v. Henley, 154 Ga.App. 555-556, 269 S.E.2d 60 (1980). We will not say, as a matter of law, that the jumping or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green v. Wilson
...had bitten the defendant's uncle when he startled the dog by banging on the porch where the dog was sleeping); Marshall v. Person, 176 Ga.App. 542, 543, 336 S.E.2d 380 (1985) (dog that jumped on plaintiff, a stranger to it, previously had jumped on its owners in a display of “frolicsome aff......
-
Steagald v. Eason
...jump on or chase people. See Green v. Wilson , 333 Ga.App. 631, 633, 773 S.E.2d 872 (2015) (physical precedent); Marshall v. Person , 176 Ga.App. 542, 543, 336 S.E.2d 380 (1985). In contrast, the Court of Appeals has indicated that barking and growling at people, without more, will not crea......
-
Thurmond v. Saffo
...to support a finding that the Saffos should have anticipated the subsequent successful attack on Reid. Marshall v. Person, 176 Ga.App. 542, 543, 336 S.E.2d 380 (1985). We do not address the opinion in Supan v. Griffin, 238 Ga.App. 404, 519 S.E.2d 22 (1999), as, under a long line of cases, G......
-
Stanger v. Cato
...act which caused injury to the complaining party is indispensable to recovery against the owner. [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Marshall v. Person, 176 Ga.App. 542, 543, 336 S.E.2d 380 (1985). Defendant denied that his dog had ever exhibited any vicious or dangerous propensities or that he had any knowled......