Litzkuhn v. Clark

UDALL, Justice.

Plaintiff, Florence D. Litzkuhn, appeals from a judgment in favor of defendantsappellees, Russell A. Clark, et ux., based upon an adverse jury’s verdict in a dog bite case. We shall hereafter refer to the parties as they appeared in the lower court.

Plaintiff’s action was brought under what is commonly called the “Dog Bite Statute”, Ch. 42, L. ’52 (now appearing as A.R.S. sections 24 — 521 to 24-523, inch). The pertinent sections read:

“Section 1. Liability for damages. The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or…