Lovell v. Haas

In dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff’s own testimony showed he had knowledge of the alleged vicious propensities of defendant’s dog, we think the trial court erred. Such knowledge on the part of plaintiff, who was an employee of defendant, in the circumstances of this case, did not necessarily bar recovery for the injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff. The rule is that one who keeps a vicious dog, with knowledge of its savage and vicious nature, is presumed to be negligent if he does not keep the animal secure from injuring others. (Muller v. McKesson, 73 N. Y. 195;…