Legal Opinion

Kippen v. Ollasson

California Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1902No. S.F. No. 2056PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

The action was to recover for injuries occasioned to the person of plaintiff by the bite of a dog- owned by defendant. The propositions to be established in such a case are,—1. That the animal was vicious; and 2. That the owner knew it. Both of these propositions were, upon sufficient evidence, proved to the satisfaction of the jury. It was shown by defendant’s own testimony, as well as by the testimony of others, that previous to this occurrence the dog had attacked one Herbert Burton, biting him, tearing his trousers, and injuring his leg. Defendant testifies: “I saw him when he did it, and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Clowdis v. Fresno Flume & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Laverone v. MangiantiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Roberts v. EldredCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Finney v. CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hicks v. SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  2. Landon v. LandonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Ginochio v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API