Keenan v. Hayden
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe County Court of Milwaukee County. Action to recover tbe expenses incurred by tbe plaintiff in caring for and curing bis minor son of wounds inflicted upon bim by tbe female dog of tbe defendant. It is averred in tbe complaint that, before tbe injuries were inflicted, tbe defendant bad notice of tbe vicious propensities of bis dog, etc., notwithstanding wbicb be suffered ber to go at large and do tbe injury. Tbe answer is a general denial.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe County Court of Milwaukee County. Action to recover tbe expenses incurred by tbe plaintiff in caring for and curing bis minor son of wounds inflicted upon bim by tbe female dog of tbe defendant. It is averred in tbe complaint that, before tbe injuries were inflicted, tbe defendant bad notice of tbe vicious propensities of bis dog, etc., notwithstanding wbicb be suffered ber to go at large and do tbe injury. Tbe answer is a general denial. A motion for a nonsuit for tbe alleged want of proof of tbe scienter was denied, and tbe plaintiff bad a verdict. A motion ■ for a new trial…
1Opinion of the CourtLyoN, J.
It is conceded that tbe minor son of tbe plaintiff was severely bitten by tbe defendant’s dog, and that, if tbe _ plaintiff is entitled to recover anything, tbe damages were assessed at a reasonable sum. Tbe principal question to be determined is, whether there was sufficient testimony tending to show that tbe defendant knew tbe vicious propensities of tbe dog, to justify tbe court in submitting the question of scienter to tbe jury. Or tbe question is, rather, whether there was any testimony in tbe case tending to prove such knowledge by tbe defendant; for if there was any testimony of that…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Fake v. AddicksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Cameron v. BryanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Cowan v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1891
- United States v. LangfordIdaho Supreme Court · 1889