Henkel v. Jordan
Court of Appeals of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
Foth, C.J.:
This is a “dog fright” as opposed to a “dog bite” case. The primary issue is whether defendants could properly be held liable for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff when, frightened by defendant’s dog, he lost control of and fell from a bicycle. A jury returned a substantial verdict for plaintiff. Defendants appeal, contending first and foremost that liability could only arise if their dog was vicious and they knew it, and the dog bit or otherwise came into physical contact with plaintiff. There being no evidence or contention of any such contact, they maintain their motion…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Farrior v. PaytonHawaii Supreme Court · 1977
- Whitsel v. WattsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Bechard v. Concrete Mix & Construction Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1976
- Gardner v. KoenigSupreme Court of Kansas · 1961
- Machacado v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Vetter v. MorganCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1995
- Henry v. BrownSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985
- Mercer v. FrittsCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1984
- Schneider v. KumpfOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- Sharp v. WilliamsUtah Supreme Court · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.