Rowe v. Ehrmanntraut
| Decision Date | 15 April 1904 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13,935 - (67).,s. 13,935 - (67). |
| Citation | 92 Minn. 17 |
| Parties | WILLIAM ROWE v. CHARLES EHRMANNTRAUT.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Frank A. Hutson, for appellant.
Harvey L. Mills, for respondent.
Respondent was bitten by a dog owned by appellant, and recovered a verdict of $150 for his injuries.
During the trial, the subject under discussion being the dog's disposition, a witness was permitted to testify that on a certain occasion, when driving by appellant's place, the dog jumped over the fence of the yard into the street, and attacked and seriously wounded his little Scotch terrier. The terrier was produced in court, and its scars pointed out. The evidence was objected to upon the ground that it was immaterial irrelevant, and incompetent, but admitted upon the ground that, while not in itself sufficient to show that appellant's dog was malevolently inclined towards persons, yet, when the fact was established that he had attacked people, the incident might be considered as bearing upon the question of the dog's temper. While true that a dog may have the habit of attacking other dogs or passing teams, and still be harmless as to people, yet, if a dog does in fact molest mankind, and the question being whether it is the result of a vicious disposition, the actions of the dog towards other dogs and animals have a bearing, and may be shown. While it was not necessary, and hardly permissible, to exhibit the terrier before the jury, yet it does not appear that any substantial prejudice was created thereby.
2. There was sufficient evidence to show that the dog was of an ill-natured disposition. Respondent was attacked and severely bitten, and, according to his testimony, without any provocation. Three other occasions were testified to of the dog's assailing passers-by and tearing their clothing. Although there was some dispute as to the identity of the dog and the time of these occurrences, that was all a question for the jury.
3. There was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury upon the question of notice by appellant of the dog's disposition. Respondent testified that, at the time he was attacked, he went into appellant's house and made complaint of the matter to his daughters, and also notified appellant. The owner of the Scotch terrier testified that, upon the occasion of his dog's injury, he carried the animal into appellant's house, showed it to the family, and made complaint. Appellant himself testified that he had been informed by his daughters of a previous attack upon respondent, and the tearing of his coat. Appellant kept his dog for the purpose of guarding the premises, and it was his intention to keep him...
To continue reading
Request your trial