Pallman v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1933 |
| Citation | 167 A. 733,117 Conn. 667 |
| Parties | PALLMAN v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Frank P. McEvoy, Judge.
Action by Ruth C. Pallman against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by an attack by a vicious cat, wrongfully kept by defendant. From a judgment, entered on a directed verdict for defendant after trial to a jury, plaintiff appeals.
No error.
Storekeeper held not liable for injuries to customer attacked by cat, in absence of evidence that former knew that cat was vicious.
Robert J. Woodruff, of New Haven (A. Oswald Pallman, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellant.
Thomas A. Grimes and Arthur W. Chambers, both of New Haven (John D. McHugh, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for an attack alleged to have been made upon her in a store owned and operated by the defendant. The trial court directed the jury to bring in a verdict for the defendant. The defendant in any event would not be liable unless it knew or should have known that the cat was of a vicious or mischievous disposition and hence liable to attack people. Bischoff v. Cheney, 89 Conn. 1. 92 A. 660: Goodwin v. E. B. Nelson Grocery Co., 239 Mass. 232, 234, 132 N.E. 51; Clinton v. J. Lyons Co., Ltd., L. R. (1912) K. B. 198. The record is barren of any evidence tending to prove that the cat had, to the knowledge of the defendant or any of its servants or agents, ever before attacked any person or in any way displayed a vicious or mischievous disposition. It is true that the plaintiff testified that a clerk in the store at the time of the accident said to her that they were going to get rid of the cat the next day anyway; but such a statement would afford no reasonable basis for an inference that the reason for the proposed action was because the cat was known to be vicious or mischievous. In the absence of evidence upon which the jury could base a finding of knowledge on the part of the defendant that the cat was vicious or mischievous, there was no reasonable basis upon which the jury could find a verdict for the plaintiff, and the trial court was correct in directing a verdict for the defendant.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. P'ship
...subsequent cases that both involved cat bites, the Supreme Court applied that precedent. In Pallman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 117 Conn. 667, 167 A. 733 (1933), a one paragraph per curiam decision, the court cited Bischoff for the proposition that “[t]he defendant ... would not be......
-
State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Craig
...& Co., 194 Misc. 211, 88 N.Y.S.2d 378, 380; Marsalis v. LaSalle, La.App., 94 So.2d 120, 123-124(2-4); Pallman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 117 Conn. 667, 167 A. 733; 2 Am.Jur., Animals, Sec. 65, p. 742; annotation 17 A.L.R.2d 459, 464 (Secs. 6, 8).12 Snyder v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R......
-
Basney v. Klema
...of a vicious or mischievous disposition and hence liable to attack people and that the owner knew of it. Pallman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 117 Conn. 667, 668, 167 A. 733. The gist of the complaint in the present case is that the plaintiff was bitten by a dog owned by the defendan......
-
Clark v. Brings
...(La.App.), 94 So.2d 120, involving, as does this case, a Siamese cat; Bischoff v. Cheney, 89 Conn. 1, 92 A. 660; Pallman v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 117 Conn. 667, 167 A. 733; Gardner v. H. C. Bohack Co., 179 App.Div. 242, 166 N.Y.S. 476; Buckle v. Holmes (1926) 2 K.B. 125, 54 A.L.R. 89. The ......