Maxwell v. Fraze, 23186
| Decision Date | 06 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 23186,23186 |
| Citation | 344 S.W.2d 262 |
| Parties | Melissa MAXWELL, by Her Next Friend and Mother, Claudia Maxwell, Appellant, v. Sam FRAZE, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Maurice E. Benson, Kansas City, for appellant.
Dwight L. Larison (Hogsett, Houts, James, Randall & Hogsett) Kansas City, for respondent.
This is a dog bite case. Plaintiff, Melissa Maxwell, 15 years old, obtained a jury verdict for $100 against defendant, Sam Fraze, because his two year old toy female Boxer dog, 'Lady' bit her on her right thumb. The trial court sustained defendant's motion to set aside the jury's verdict and to enter judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals from the resultant judgment.
The question presented on this appeal is whether plaintiff made a submissible jury case. The principal controversy as presented by the parties is whether defendant kept a vicious dog after knowledge of her vicious propensities, and whether the injury complained of was the result of any such propensity.
In determining the question of submissibility of the case we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. As so viewed if no case was made on the issues submitted to the jury then the judgment for defendant must be affirmed; otherwise it should be reversed and the jury's verdict ordered reinstated.
Plaintiff testified that on June 7, 1958, she and her mother went to a friend Golding's house as Lake Lotawana. The dog, 'Lady', was around the premises. 'Lady' belonged to defendant, a neighbor, who lived about four houses away. Plaintiff had been to Lake Lotawana on numerous previous occasions and was familiar with 'Lady'. She had often played with 'Lady' on other occasions and had fed her. She knew the dog was welcome in the Golding house. She and her mother went into the house and 'Lady' followed them in. They were sitting on a porch eating lunch with 'Lady' nearby.
Although she had played with 'Lady' before, and 'Lady' in play would grab her arm with her teeth 'Lady' had never before bitten her. She didn't consider the dog ferocious or mean.
'Q. And you wouldn't have any fear of that dog now, would you? A. If the dog were not in pain or something of that nature. * * *
'Q. You would actually say this dog was just a playful dog, would you not? A. Yes, I would.
Plaintiff's mother, Mrs. Maxwell, testified that when she and her daughter arrived at the Golding home they saw 'Lady' and petted and talked to her, and she followed them into the house. They were sitting on the porch, 'and all of a sudden we heard this dog howling and yelping, and it seemed to be in extreme pain.' Mrs. Maxwell knew the dog was in pain and that it might be dangerous to go near it. Her daughter went to see what was wrong and she did not see her get bitten. After her daughter was bitten Mrs. Maxwell opened the screen door freeing the dog's paws from where they were caught between the bottom of the door and the floor. She was able to do so without getting too close to the dog. The dog remained in the house until defendant came and got her.
Mrs. Maxwell from former visits knew the dog and was friendly with it. She had seen her daughter playing with 'Lady' on prior occasions. She had never seen 'Lady' attempt to bite anyone. She would not call 'Lady' a ferocious or mean dog.
The only evidence relating to any past biting by 'Lady' came from plaintiff and two neighbor ladies, all called as witnesses on behalf of plaintiff. They testified that defendant the following day came to see plaintiff and remarked about an earlier occasion when 'Lady' had bitten him. Plaintiff testified, Mrs. Searle, a neighbor, testified she had heard the above statement by defendant. She didn't regard 'Lady' as vicious. 'Lady' was at her house every day. She feeds her all the time and is not afraid of her. Mrs. Andrae, a neighbor, testified she also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazier v. Stone, 9704
...Skipper in fact had vicious or dangerous propensities. Clinkenbeard v. Reinert, 284 Mo. 569, 225 S.W. 667 (banc 1920); Maxwell v. Fraze, 344 S.W.2d 262 (Mo.App.1961). 'Of course, the injury complained of must result from the exercise of the dangerous propensity. . . . It is not necessary fo......
-
Mongeon v. A & V ENTERPRISES, INC.
...the necessity of proof of a prior dangerous or vicious propensity by the dog actually involved in the incident. In Maxwell v. Fraze, 344 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Mo.Ct.App.1961), the court held that evidence on the issue as to whether the defendant harbored a vicious dog after obtaining knowledge o......
-
Farrior v. Payton
...v. Craig, supra. 'Of course, the injury complained of must result from the exercise of the dangerous propensity.' Maxwell v. Fraze, 344 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Mo.App.1961). The terms 'vicious propensities' and 'dangerous propensities' have been defined as '(a)ny propensity on the part of the dog,......
-
Humes v. Salerno
...as the jury could and did find them, Sal's Son was a vicious horse (Merritt v. Matchett, 135 Mo.App. 176, 115 S.W. 1066; Maxwell v. Fraze, Mo.App., 344 S.W.2d 262), and the only question is whether there is also evidence from which the jury could reasonably draw the inference that Dr. Saler......
-
Section 21 Liability of Domestic Animal Owners
...surrounding previous acts of the animal must be examined. See: Bush v. Anderson, 360 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. App. E.D. 1962) Maxwell v. Fraze, 344 S.W.2d 262 (Mo. App. W.D. Boyer v. Callahan, 406 S.W.2d 805 (Mo. App. E.D. 1966) Frazier v. Stone, 515 S.W.2d 766 (Mo. App. S.D. 1974) Sayers v. Haushal......
-
Section 12.38 There Is a Causal Relationship Between the Injury-Causing Act and the Animal’s Dangerous Tendency
...the complained-of injury was the result of the dangerous tendency of which the owner, keeper, or harborer was aware. Maxwell v. Fraze, 344 S.W.2d 262 (Mo. App. W.D. 1961). Although the attack must be the proximate result of the dangerous tendencies of the animal, the owner, keeper, or harbo......