Schaller v. Connors

• Decision Date: 04 April 1883
• Citation: 57 Wis. 321,15 N.W. 389
• Parties: SCHALLER v. CONNORS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

57 Wis. 321

15 N.W. 389

SCHALLER

v.CONNORS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed April 4, 1883.

Appeal from circuit court, Rock county.

This was an action to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of being bitten on the left leg by a dog, alleged to belong to and kept by the defendant, and by him wrongfully and negligently suffered to be at large, knowing him to be of a ferocious and mischevious disposition, and accustomed to bite mankind, and which bite is alleged to have caused the plaintiff great pain and fright, and also for injury and destruction of a pair of pants then belonging to and being worn by him, of the value of $3.50, in all to his damage of $15, for which he demanded judgment. The defendant put in a general denial, and alleged tender of fifty cents, which was paid into court. The cause was tried without a jury, by and before a justice of the peace, who at the close of the testimony rendered judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendant for $1.50 damages and costs. From that judgment the defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment was affirmed, and from which this appeal is brought.Street & McLean, for respondent, George Schaller.

Bates & Nichols, for appellant, Patrick Connors.

CASSODAY, J.

The statute provides that “the owner or keeper of any dog, which shall have injured or caused the injury of any person or property, or killed, wounded, or worried any horses, cattle, sheep, or lambs, shall be liable to the person so injured, and the owner of such animals, for all damages so done, without proving notice to the owner or keeper of such dog, or knowledge by him that his dog was mischievous or disposed to kill, wound, or worry horses, cattle, sheep, or lambs. Section 1620, Rev. St. Thus the statute makes the “keeper” of a dog liable for the injury, even though he be not the owner. The evidence here is sufficient to sustain the finding of the justice that the defendant was the keeper of the dog in question. He testified that he had kept him off and on for three or four years; that he and his folks had fed him; that the dog was in the habit of going with him; and was at his house the night of the injury and before. So, under the statute, the defendant, as such keeper, was liable for such injury, without proving that he had previous knowledge or notice of the mischievous character of the dog. This is conceded by his counsel, so far as the injury to the plaintiff's person was...