McCarthy v. Daunis

• Decision Date: 01 August 1933
• Citation: 117 Conn. 307,167 A. 918
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: McCARTHY v. DAUNIS et al.

167 A. 918

117 Conn. 307

McCARTHY v. DAUNIS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

August 1, 1933

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Edward J. Finn Judge.

Action by Donald McCarthy against Paul C. Daunis and others to recover damages for injury to the person of the plaintiff alleged to have been caused by a dog harbored and kept by the defendants, brought to the court of common pleas and tried to the court; judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants.

No error.

A Henry Weisman, of Waterbury, for appellants.

William B. Fitzgerald, of Waterbury, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.

HINMAN, Judge.

The trial court found that in the spring of 1931 the defendant Paul Daunis purchased a large German police dog, and that until February 7, 1932, both he and the other defendant, his wife, fed, cared for, and had the dog under their control and harbored him. On that date the dog, which was confined on the defendant's lot by a wire fence so constructed as to leave meshes about six inches square, put his head through one of these apertures, seized a small dog which was just outside the fence and pulled him against it so that the collar of the small dog caught in the fence, leaving him hanging clear of the ground, barking and whining loudly. This attracted the attention of the plaintiff, a boy who was coasting on the street near by, and he approached for the purpose of releasing the dog from his uncomfortable predicament. The police dog was then a considerable distance away from the fence, but as the plaintiff placed his right hand near the small dog to detach its collar from the fence the police dog rushed up, thrust his jaws through one of the meshes in the fence and bit off the terminal phalanx of the plaintiff's middle finger.

The appellants seek to substitute for the finding that the defendants kept and harbored the dog at the time of the injury one that Frank and Mary Gudiskas were its owners and were its keepers after they, in September, 1931, entered into joint occupancy, with the defendants, of the latter's apartment. One who treats a dog as living at his house and undertakes to control his actions is the owner, keeper, or harborer as affecting liability for injuries caused by it. Wood v. Campbell, 28 S.D. 197, 132 N.W. 785, Ann.Cas. 1914B, 605; McClain v. Lewiston Interstate Fair & Racing Ass'n, 17 Idaho, 63, 93, 104 P. 1015, 25 L.R.A. (N. S.) 691, 20 Ann.Cas. 60; 3 C.J. 106. The evidence relevant to this issue was contradictory, except that it is undisputed that the Daunis cared for the dog for a time before the Gudiskas moved in with them. The defendants claimed, however, that this period was only about a month, while the testimony of the plaintiff and several others was that it was from the preceding spring. The facts in question were not found without evidence, and those sought to be substituted are by no means undisputed. As to the further fact, which the defendants ask to have added-that the plaintiff...