Renner v. Canfield

• Decision Date: 22 November 1886
• Citation: 36 Minn. 90,30 N.W. 435
• Parties: RENNER v CANFIELD.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

36 Minn. 90

30 N.W. 435

RENNERvCANFIELD.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 22, 1886.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

C., while on the highway in proximity to the residence of R., shot and killed the dog of S. The wife of R., who stood near by, and saw the shooting, (C., however, did not see her, and was not aware of her presence,) was, owing to her previous delicate state of health, so startled and frightened by the occurrence as to cause serious sickness. Held that, even assuming the act to have been tort, the mere killing of the dog was not the approximate cause of the injury to the wife of R.

If the acts of C. amounted to any tort which, in any view, could be held to be the proximate cause of this injury, the gist of it must have been, not the killing of the dog, but negligence in shooting it in such proximity to the residence of R. as might naturally and reasonably be anticipated liable to injure the inmates.

Appeal from an order of the district court, Douglas county.

Clapp, Woodard & Cowie and Nelson, Reynolds & Treat, for respondent, Renner.

H. Jenkins, for appellant, Canfield.

MITCHELL, J.

As the defendant and one Ward were driving along the highway in front of plaintiff's premises, a dog belonging to plaintiff's father (and which happened to be at that time on plaintiff's premises) rushed out upon the highway, and attacked Ward's dog. Plaintiff jumped out of his wagon with his gun, whereupon the dog of Renner, Sr., retreated towards or upon plaintiff's premises. While it was thus retreating, defendant fired at and killed it. This dog was accustomed to attack and worry the dogs of passing travelers on the highway, but there is no evidence that it ever attacked persons. When defendant shot the dog, he stood in the highway, about 175 feet from the plaintiff's house, which was situated on elevated ground some distance back from the road. The dog, when shot, was some 150 feet from the house. Plaintiff's wife was standing at the pump, at or near the side of the house, and saw the defendant shoot, but defendant did not see her, and was not aware of her presence; the view from the highway to the house being more or less intercepted by intervening trees. Mrs. Renner, being, owing to her pregnancy, in a delicate state of health, and her nerves very sensitive, was so startled and frightened as to seriously affect her health. Her fright seems to have been largely caused, or at least greatly aggravated, by the mistaken impression that defendant aimed his gun towards her, when in fact it was aimed at right angles to the direction where she was standing. For...