Files v. Poirier

Rufo, Robert C., J.

This action arose following an incident in which a dog, owned by the defendants, bit the plaintiff during the dog’s treatment at a veterinary clinic. The plaintiff asserted a (1) G.L.c. 140, §155 claim and (2) negligence claim against the defendants. The defendants have moved for summary judgment on both claims. For the following reasons, the defendants’ motion on the G.L.c. 140, §155 claim (Count I) is ALLOWED and on the negligence claim (Count II) is DENIED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

As required by Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, the undisputed facts are summarized in a light most favorable to…