Wetzel v. Bolster
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Calhoun; North, J. Case by Albert W. Wetzel, by his next friend, against Robert J. Bolster for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Plaintiff sued to recover damages sustained in consequence of being bitten by a dog belonging to defendant. The action is brought under the statute. 2 Comp. Laws, § 5593. It appears that the defendant, while confessedly the owner of the dog, was not its keeper at the time the injury was inflicted.
Read the full summary
Error to Calhoun; North, J. Case by Albert W. Wetzel, by his next friend, against Robert J. Bolster for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Plaintiff sued to recover damages sustained in consequence of being bitten by a dog belonging to defendant. The action is brought under the statute. 2 Comp. Laws, § 5593. It appears that the defendant, while confessedly the owner of the dog, was not its keeper at the time the injury was inflicted. Defendant resided at the city of Battle Creek, and, some six weeks prior to the time of plaintiff’s injury, had turned the dog…
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
(after stating the facts). Under the authority of Burnham v. Strother, 66 Mich. 519 (33 N. W. 410), the court properly charged the jury that:
“In the contemplation of the law, Mr. Frank Bock was the keeper of the dog whose actions are complained of in this case, on the day in question, and that the defendant, Mr. Bolster, was not such keeper, and that he is not legally liable to the plaintiff in this case, and your judgment will therefore be for the defendant.”
To this direction, the court added the following:
“Unless the defendant, Bolster, has admitted his liability for the damages done by the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Meister v. BirneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Burnham v. StrotherMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Robb v. ShephardMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- Trager v. ThorMichigan Supreme Court · 1994