Kippen v. Ollasson

HENSHAW, J.

The action was to recover for injuries occasioned to the person of plaintiff by the bite of a dog-

[641]

owned by defendant. The propositions to be established in such a case are,—1. That the animal was vicious; and 2. That the owner knew it. Both of these propositions were, upon sufficient evidence, proved to the satisfaction of the jury. It was shown by defendant’s own testimony, as well as by the testimony of others, that previous to this occurrence the dog had attacked one Herbert Burton, biting him, tearing his trousers, and injuring his leg. Defendant testifies: “I saw him when he did it, and I paid him for the pants.” Burton had expostulated with the owner and told him he ought to kill the dog. The dog likewise attacked another witness, Mrs. Horace Coos, upon the premises of the defendant, and tore her clothes. Defendant’s--daughter testified: “Mrs. Coos was coming to the house. She was in the front yard. I did not see her. I heard her child crying. I opened the door and she was standing near the dog.” In the case at bar the plaintiff stood in the county road in front of defendant’s house and called to the defendant’s daughter, with whom she was going blaekberrying. She did not enter the yard, because she knew the dog was vicious. The dog, tied in the yard near the house, broke his tether, rushed out into the road, attacked the plaintiff, and bit her upon the leg, injuring her severely. The evidence justified the verdict. The instructions were within the law as laid down in

Laverone

v.

Mangianti,

41 Cal. 138;

1

Finney

v.

Curtis,

78 Cal. 501;

Clowdis

v.

Fresno Flume etc. Co.,

118 Cal. 320.

2