Koestel v. Cunningham
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case- 63 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS DIVISION. 1. The trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the issue as to whether the appellee was bitten by the appellant’s dog.
Read the full summary
Case- 63 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS DIVISION. 1. The trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the issue as to whether the appellee was bitten by the appellant’s dog. (Keightlinger v. Egan, 65 111., 236.) 2. The court erred in admitting evidence tending to prove that the dog was vicious, and in submitting to the jury the question of punitive damages on the idea that the dog was vicious and known to be such by the appellant. (Wood on Nuisances, vol. 2, sec. 678; Hartly v. Harriman, 2 B. & Aid., 620; Judge v. Cox, 1 Starkie, 227; Murray v.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered the opinion of the court.
Cunningham recovered of Koestel a judgment for $500 in damages by reason of injuries inflicted on him'by the bite of the latter’s dog.
For the appellant it is insisted that the instructions given .on the trial are erroneous, chiefly because they submitted the question of punitive damages to the jui’y. ’The verdict does not appear to exceed the actual damages of the plain*423tiff under tbe proof, but if it did wé should not regard it as invalid.
The general rule in tort actions is that if the defendant act maliciously, wilfully, or with such gross…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. WilkinsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Pullman Co. v. PulliamCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
- C. I. T. Corporation v. ShortCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1938
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. John's AdministratrixCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Dykes v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1967
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.