O'Rourke v. Finch

Vicious Animals—Bite of Minor by Vicious Dog—Ownership— Knowledge of Vicious Propensities—Support of Verdict.—In an action by a minor to recover damages for the bite of a vicious dog, negligently allowed to run at large by the owner with knowledge of its vicious propensities, held, against the contention of the defendant appealing to the contrary, that the evidence is sufficient to show his ownership of the dog at the time of the bite; and that he had previous knowledge of its vicious propensity to bite children, and that the verdict for the plaintiff was supported in both respects.

Id.—Evidence of Ownership—Province of Jury—Gift—Subterfuge. Evidence was properly admitted that defendant appealing procured a collar for the dog with his initials engraved thereon, which was worn at the time of the bite, as tending to show his ownership at that time, to be considered in connection with other evidence that he was seen daily with it on the streets, had bought and paid for it, and was much attached to it; and the jury might properly consider from such evidence that he was the real owner of the dog at the ^time of the bite, and that an alleged gift thereof by him to the lady of the house in which he lived was a mere subterfuge to escape liability.

Id.—Evidence of “Tricks” by Dog Properly Excluded.—Offered evidence for the purpose of showing the nature and kind of the tricks that could be performed by the dog as a “trick dog” was properly excluded, as not tending to justify its bite of the child.

Id.—Refusal of Instruction as to Ownership of Dog by Persons Living Therewith.—There was no error in refusing a requested instruction that one who treats a dog as living at his house and undertakes to control its actions is the owner of the dog within the meaning of the law. Though such instruction might be given where one is charged as keeper of a vicious dog in full control, and is claiming otherwise, yet, when the owner also has control of the dog, and keeps it with knowledge of its vicious nature, he cannot escape liability on the theory that the dog lived with other defendants not appealing, and was sometimes seen with them or either of them.