Schraeder v. Koopman
| Decision Date | 21 June 1926 |
| Citation | 190 Wis. 459,209 N.W. 714 |
| Parties | SCHRAEDER v. KOOPMAN ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ozaukee County; C. M. Davison, Judge.
Action by J. Schraeder against Ben Koopman and another. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Brennan, Lucas & O'Day, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Peter M. Huiras, of Port Washington, for respondents.
The action was based upon injuries to the plaintiff resulting from a collision between plaintiff's automobile and defendants' dog. The dog was at large and started to cross the highway in front of plaintiff's oncoming automobile. The plaintiff ran into the dog and lost control of his car, and he suffered very severe injuries as a result. There was no evidence that the dog was vicious or mischievous, and there was no evidence that the defendants were guilty of any negligence other than allowing the dog to be at large, if that be negligence. On the contrary, the testimony on the part of the defense showed that the dog was not vicious or mischievous.
Plaintiff relies upon section 174.02, Stats. (formerly section 1620), which reads as follows:
“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.”
[1][2][3] At the common law, the owner was not liable for damages resulting from the vicious act of his dog, unless he had prior knowledge of its vicious propensities. Slinger v. Henneman, 38 Wis. 504. But the statute quoted dispenses with the scienter, and it is not now necessary to a prima facie case to show defendant's previous knowledge of the vicious character of the dog. However, the statute does not fix absolute liability of the owner even for the vicious acts of his dog. On the contrary, he may show contributory negligence on the part of the injured party as a defense to an action for damages under the statute. Harris v. Hoyt, 161 Wis. 498, 154 N. W. 842, L. R. A. 1916C, 344;Legault v. Malacker, 166 Wis. 58, 163 N. W. 476, 1 A. L. R. 1109.
Considering the history of the statute and the decisions of this court, it is plain that the statute does not impose liability on the owner for damages caused by the innocent acts of his dog, but only for its vicious or mischievous acts....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Hansen
...the owner would not be liable unless he had knowledge or ought to have known of such propensities. Consequently, in Schraeder v. Koopman, 1926, 190 Wis. 459, 209 N.W. 714, where the plaintiff's automobile struck a dog crossing the street, no recovery was allowed on the reasoning the statute......
-
Le Mars Mut. Ins. Co. of Iowa v. Bonnecroy
...Brown v. Moyer, 186 Iowa 1322, 1325, 171 N.W. 297, 298 (1919); 4 Am.Jur.2d Animals §§ 115-116 (1962). In Schraeder v. Koopman, 190 Wis. 459, 461, 209 N.W. 714, 714 (1926), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Wisconsin's dog-owner-liability statute was not applicable when a motorist ran in......
-
Vandercar v. David
...195, 29 Am.Rep. 123; Sandy v. Bushey, 124 Me. 320, 128 A. 513; Peck v. Williams, 24 R.I. 583, 54 A. 381, 61 L.R.A. 351; Schraeder v. Koopman, 190 Wis. 459, 209 N.W. 714; Hughey v. Fergus County, 98 Mont. 98, 37 P.2d 1035; Gagnon v. Frank, 83 N.H. 122, 139 A. 373; Colby v. Lee, 83 N.H. 303, ......
-
Grummel v. Decker
...N.E. 791;Spellman v. Dyer, 186 Mass. 176, 71 N.E. 295;Bush v. Wathen, 104 Ky. 548, 47 S.W. 599; Cook v. Pickrel, supra; Schraeder v. Koopman, 190 Wis. 459, 209 N.W. 714. One is guilty of contributory negligence when by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence he could have avoided the inj......