Strange v. Stovall, 76--234
| Decision Date | 14 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 76--234,76--234,1 |
| Citation | 261 Ark. 53,546 S.W.2d 421 |
| Parties | Charles STRANGE, as next friend of Connie Lynn Strange, a minor, Appellant, v. Alton STOVALL et ux., Appellees |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Tackett, Moore, Dowd & Harrelson, Texarkana, for appellant.
Young, Patton & Folsom, Texarkana, for appellees.
On Christmas Day, 1973, Connie Lynn Strange, 13, left her home in Stamps to visit her grandparents, who lived next door. On the way the child was attacked and bitten by Blue John, a large dog owned by the appellees, Connie's uncle and aunt, who had been visiting Connie's grandparents and were about to leave. This action for personal injuries was brought by Connie's father, the appellant, as her natural guardian and next friend. There was evidence, sufficient to go to the jury, that the Stovalls knew that Blue John was vicious, Stovall having admitted to two witnesses that the animal was mean and had bitten him several times. The dog had also bitten Mrs. Stovall.
At the close of the case counsel for the plaintiffs asked that the case be submitted to the jury on the theory of strict liability; that is, as set out originally in AMI 1602, that one who keeps a vicious domestic animal with knowledge of its dangerous tendencies does so at his own risk and is liable for injuries caused by the animal without proof that the owner was otherwise at fault. AMI Civil, 1602 (1965).
The trial judge, relying upon the amended version of AMI 1602, as it appears in the pocket supplement to the first edition and in AMI Civil 2d (1974), ruled that strict liability is no longer the law in Arkansas. Finding no negligence on the part of the Stovalls, who had merely tethered the dog near the back door, the court ruled that they were entitled to judgment. Nevertheless, to prevent a retrial, the court submitted the case to the jury upon instructions which included AMI 1602, as amended, and AMI 2102, on comparative negligence. The jury returned a $2,500 verdict in favor of Connie's father alone, whose recoverable damages are conceded to be only $1,601.50.
We do not agree with the view that with regard to an animal known to be vicious, strict liability is no longer the law in Arkansas. Our cases applying that rule have not been overruled. The revision of AMI 1602, as explained in the 1969 pocket supplement, was based in part upon our holding in Finley v. Smith, 240 Ark. 323, 399 S.W.2d 271 (1966). That case, however, merely held that an animal's propensity to injure people may stem from playfulness as well as from savagery. The rule of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeRobertis by DeRobertis v. Randazzo
...v. Manhart, 120 Ariz. 338, 585 P.2d 1250 (1978) (imposing absolute liability when licensee was bitten by a dog); Strange v. Stovall, 261 Ark. 53, 546 S.W.2d 421 (Ark.1977) (absolute liability imposed, but defense of comparative negligence allowed); Swerdfeger v. Krueger, 145 Colo. 180, 358 ......
-
Hamby v. Haskins
...we do note that the doctrine of strict liability is the law in Arkansas with regard to an animal known to be vicious. Strange v. Stovall, 261 Ark. 53, 546 S.W.2d 421 (1977) ). Appellant asserts that because neither he nor any of his family were at home when the incident took place then he c......
-
Van Houten v. Pritchard
...The dog's owner is strictly liable regardless of any precautions he may have taken to avoid the dog's escape. See Strange v. Stovall, 261 Ark. 53, 546 S.W.2d 421 (1977); see also J. Herman Ivester, Note, Torts--AMI 1602 and 1603--Strict Liability or Negligence?, 24 Ark.L.Rev. 593 Appellant ......
-
Ambort v. Nowlin, 86-22
...instructions from AMI Civil 2d 1602 and 1604 (Revised). These revised instructions were drafted after our decision in Strange v. Stovall, 261 Ark. 53, 546 S.W.2d 421 (1977). The reporter's note to No. 1602 (Revised) reads in part: "If there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff is......