Gagnon v. Frank
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtMarble, J.
On June 6, 1926, the plaintiff was engaged to look after the defendant’s premises in Exeter during the defendant's absence abroad. There were three dogs on the premises, and it was one of the plaintiff’s express duties to care for them. On August 2, while attending to this duty, she was bitten on the hand by one of the dogs.
The statute under which the action is brought provides that “every owner or keeper of a dog shall forfeit, to any person injured by it, double the amount of the damage sustained by him.” This statute is to be given a reasonable interpretation. Quimby v. Woodbury, 63 N. H.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Quimby v. WoodburySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- State v. RoachSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Kenalos v. H. v. Greene Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
- Chickering v. LordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1893
- McIntire v. PlaistedSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Vandercar v. DavidDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1957
- Blais v. Town of GoffstownSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- Grummel v. DeckerMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
- Raymond v. BujoldSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
- Allgeyer v. LincolnSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.