Laverone v. Mangianti
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Crockett.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, C. J.:
It is insisted, on behalf of the defendants, that a person may lawfully keep a ferocious dog—one that is accustomed to bite mankind. That position may be conceded, and it may also be conceded that he has the same right to keep a tiger. The danger to mankind and the injury, if any is suffered, comes from the same source—the ferocity of the animal. In determining the responsibility of the keeper for an injury inflicted by either animal, the only difference I can see between the two cases is, that in case of an injury caused by a dog, the knowledge of the keeper that…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Vredenburg v. BehanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1881
- Candler v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Clowdis v. Fresno Flume & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Frobig v. GordonWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- Hicks v. SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.