Murphy v. Buonato
| Decision Date | 10 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. SC,SC |
| Citation | 241 Conn. 319,696 A.2d 320 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | David MURPHY v. Charles A. BUONATO, Jr., et al. 15558. |
James A. Mulhall, Jr., with whom was Kevin T. Nixon, Sr., Naugatuck, for appellant (plaintiff).
David G. Hill, Hartford, for appellee (named defendant).
Before CALLAHAN, C.J., and BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT and KATZ, JJ.
In October, 1992, the plaintiff, David Murphy, agreed to care for a dog belonging to the defendant, Charles A. Buonato, Jr., 1 for several days while the defendant was away. On October 21, 1992, the defendant delivered the dog, a chow, to the plaintiff's house for its stay in the plaintiff's care. The following day, before leaving for work, the plaintiff took the dog for a walk and then put it inside his house. When the plaintiff returned home from work, he took the dog outside and tied it to a tree in his yard. Later, while the plaintiff was attempting to bring the dog into his house for the night, the dog bit him on the left hand, causing several puncture wounds and injury to his left arm and elbow and necessitating a series of rabies shots.
The plaintiff thereafter brought this action pursuant to General Statutes § 22-357 2 to recover damages for his injuries. The trial court found that the plaintiff was not a "keeper" of the dog as defined by General Statutes § 22-327(6) 3 and awarded the plaintiff damages and interest pursuant to General Statutes § 52-192a in the total amount of $39,364.48. The defendant appealed from the trial court's judgment arguing that the plaintiff was a "keeper" of the dog as defined in § 22-327 and, therefore, could not recover pursuant to § 22-357, because "keepers" are not within the class of persons that the legislature intended to protect by the enactment of § 22-357. The Appellate Court agreed with the defendant, concluding that the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was not a "keeper" was clearly erroneous, and that a "keeper" could not recover under the statute. Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn.App. 239, 246, 250, 679 A.2d 411 (1996).
We granted certification limited to the following question: "Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the plaintiff was a 'keeper' under General Statutes § 22-237 and prohibited from recovering from the dog's owner for injuries caused by the dog when the plaintiff was temporarily caring for the dog at the owner's request?" Murphy v. Buonato, 239 Conn. 935, 684 A.2d 708 (1996).
After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the Appellate Court's majority opinion. It would serve no purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Gajewski v. Pavelo, 236 Conn. 27, 30, 670 A.2d 318 (1996); Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., 230 Conn. 12, 16, 644 A.2d 871 (1994); Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 229 Conn. 176, 177, 640 A.2d 100 (1994).
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church
... ... The court further explained that, in contrast to the plaintiff in Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn.App. 239, 244, 679 A.2d 411 (1996), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319, 696 A.2d 320 (1997), who had "qualified as a `keeper'" because he "had ... ...
-
Tryon v. North Branford, (AC 19226)
... ... Section 22-357 creates a cause of action that did not exist at common law and, therefore, it must be strictly construed. Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 249, 679 A.2d 411 (1996), aff d, 241 Conn. 319, 696 A.2d 320 (1997) ... The purpose of § 22-357 was to "abrogate ... ...
-
Stokes v. Lyddy
... ... It `extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law' ... " (Emphasis added.) Id., 625; see also Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 248, 679 A.2d 411 (1996), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319, 696 A.2d 320 (1997) ; D. Wright, J. Fitzgerald & W. Ankerman, ... ...
-
Weyel v. Catania
... ... is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 242, 679 A.2d 411 (1996), affd, 241 Conn. 319, 696 A.2d 320 (1997) ... The defendant challenges the ... ...
-
Connecticut Rental Car Liability Survey and Commentary
...of respondeat superior). 23.Gionfriddo, 192 Conn. at 288. 24. Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn,. App.239,249,679, A.2d 411 (1996), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319, 696, A.2d 320 (1997) 25. Nowak v. Nowak, 175 Conn. 112, 125-6, 394 A.2d 716 (1978)Edmundson v. Rivera, 169 Conn. 630, 633, 363 A.2d 1031 (1975).......
-
Developments in Tort Law: 1997 Annual Survey
...if the driver was "exhausted" he could have stopped to rest rather than turning the car over to an unauthorized driver. Id. at 31-32. 43. 241 Conn. 319, 689 A.2d 504 (1997). 44. 42 Conn. App. 239, 679 A.2d 411 (1996). 45. Murphy, 241 Conn. at 321-22. 46. 44 Conn. App. 359, 689 A.2d 504 (199......