Davis v. Mene
California Court of Appeal
1. Necessity for knowledge by owner of viciousness of domestic animal, note, 1 Ann. Gas. 205. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
This is an action for damages caused by the bite of a dog. Plaintiff had judgment and the defendants appeal. It is impossible to make a statement of the facts of the case, except from assertions made in the briefs of each of the parties and not denied by the other. Both counsel recite facts without reference to the repord, and this fault is so frequent that we are unable to make a statement from that source.
From the meager material presented to us the facts appear to be these: Respondent went on a business errand to the house of one of the appellants. The dog was on the front porch of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kellogg v. KelloggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
3Cited by6 opinions
- Coleman v. DawsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Hill Ex Rel. Hill v. MoseleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- Clark v. BringsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
- Frederickson v. KepnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Halminska v. KoblerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.