Elliott v. Herz

The statute 'which makes the owner of a dog liable in double damages for the killing, wounding or worrying by him of domestic animals, is penal in its consequences, and cannot he supposed to have been designed for cases in which the owner was in no manner in fault. Damages in excess of the real injury are awarded in some cases because the conduct of the party has been peculiarly malicious, vindictive or reckless, but never where the injury has proceeded from his misfortune rather than from any blamable-misfeasance or nonfeasance.

By the common law the owner of a dog was not liable-for an…