White v. Law
Decision Date | 18 May 1984 |
Citation | 454 So.2d 515 |
Parties | Janice M. WHITE v. Mr. Jarrett C. LAW, Mrs. Jarrett C. Law, et al. 82-1265. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William H. Brittain, II of Ball, Ball, Duke & Matthews, Montgomery, for appellant.
William J. Donald and William J. Donald, III of Zeanah, Donald & Hust, Tuscaloosa for appellees.
This case involves the appropriateness of a summary judgment for the defendants in a dog bite case.
On the afternoon of March 5, 1981, plaintiff White went to her daughter's residence to pick up her granddaughter. Upon arrival, White was informed by the granddaughter's babysitter that a neighbor's dog had dug under the backyard fence and was chasing the family's female dog around the backyard. When she opened the gate leading to her daughter's backyard, White was knocked to the ground and bitten at least once on the knee by the intruding dog. As a result of the injury, White required emergency medical treatment and later physical therapy.
On February 16, 1982, White filed a complaint against Mr. and Mrs. Jarrett C. Law, the owners of the dog, and in her original complaint she alleged negligence and/or wanton conduct on the part of the Laws. On December 8, 1982, the Laws filed an answer in which they denied the general allegations of the complaint. On May 3, 1983, the Laws filed a motion for summary judgment. White amended her complaint on May 24, 1983, adding a count for trespass under Code 1975, § 3-1-5, and responded to the summary judgment motion. The defendants relied upon two affidavits and the depositions of White and Mrs. Law to support their claim to summary judgment. The trial court granted the Laws' summary judgment on August 17, 1983, as to all counts of the complaint.
We note initially that the plaintiff does not appeal that part of the summary judgment relating to the trespass count, the wantonness count, or the denial of injunctive relief. Where the appellant does not raise issues on appeal, we will not review them. Barrett v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Piedmont, 451 So.2d 257 (Ala.1984).
The issue is: Was there a scintilla of evidence that the Laws had knowledge prior to this incident, either express or implied, that this dog had a propensity for such an attack?
Our examination of the record on appeal, in its factual context, reveals the following: White's deposition regarding any knowledge the Laws may have had is set out below (in regard to a telephone conversation between White and Mrs. Law, White summarized the conversation thusly):
The statements made in the two affidavits offered by White regarding any knowledge or scienter on the part of the Laws are set out below:
Pat Crawford, a neighbor, in her affidavit, stated:
White's daughter also gave a statement by affidavit:
The pertinent portion of the deposition of Mrs. Law which was submitted by White reads in full:
This is the total evidence before the trial court as to whether the defendants actually knew or should have known of their dog's possible vicious propensities.
This Court recently summarized the law in cases where a dog has attacked someone off its owner's premises.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King v. Breen
...owner has "knowledge of facts from which he can infer that the animal is likely to commit an act of the kind complained of." White v. Law, 454 So.2d 515 (Ala.1984). Other courts have construed § 518 in this manner. In Westberry v. Blackwell, 282 Or. 129, 577 P. 2d 75 (1978), the plaintiff c......
-
Coley By and Through Coley v. Hendrix
...Bert S. Nettles, Mobile, for appellee. BEATTY, Justice. Affirmed on the authority of Kent v. Sims, 460 So.2d 144 (Ala.1984); White v. Law, 454 So.2d 515 (Ala.1984); Allen v. Whitehead, 423 So.2d 835 AFFIRMED. MADDOX, JONES, ALMON and HOUSTON, JJ., concur. ON REHEARING EX MERO MOTU PER CURIA......
-
King Mines Resort, Inc. v. Malachi Min. & Minerals, Inc.
...on appeal explicitly raises the question whether the trial court erred in denying King Mines' motion for a new trial. See White v. Law, 454 So.2d 515, 517 (Ala.1984). Nevertheless, because we interpret King Mines' post-judgment motion as a motion for a new trial on the weight-of-the-evidenc......
-
Humphries v. Rice
...is knowledge of facts from which he can infer that the animal is likely to commit an act of the kind complained of.' " ' "White v. Law, 454 So.2d 515 (Ala.1984). "Here, the only evidence presented at trial relating to the vicious propensities of this animal was that the animal would fight w......