Dufer v. Cully
Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon
The plaintiff sues to recover damages for wounds and injuries to Ms person, caused by a vicious bull, the property of the defendant, alleged to have been wrongfully permitted to run at large. Tbe answer denies knowledge tbat the bull was of dangerous or ferocious disposition. Denies that the bul] was wrongfully at large. Denies that the bull pushed or struck the plaintiff. The ease was tried before a jury.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff sues to recover damages for wounds and injuries to Ms person, caused by a vicious bull, the property of the defendant, alleged to have been wrongfully permitted to run at large. Tbe answer denies knowledge tbat the bull was of dangerous or ferocious disposition. Denies that the bul] was wrongfully at large. Denies that the bull pushed or struck the plaintiff. The ease was tried before a jury. The evidence tended to show that the bull, with several other of the defendant’s animals, was running at large upon unoccupied lands of the neighborhood, that the bull strayed into, or…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
J think the evidence of the defendant’s knowledge, is pertinent. This is not an action for a breaking of the plaintiff’s close, and the complaint does not charge a trespass on the plaintiff’s premises. The case of Van Leuven v. Lyhe, and the authorities there cited touching the point, sustain the general doctrine that the scienter must be proved to render the owner of a domestic animal liable, but recognize as an exception, that “this rule does not apply when the mischief is done by such animals while committing a trespass upon the close of another.” These ■authorities base the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Doe v. BarnettIndiana Court of Appeals · 1969
- Indianapolis Abattoir Co. v. BaileyIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Williams v. GoodwinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Schnell v. HowittOregon Supreme Court · 1938