Wurtzler v. Miller

For the purpose of this appeal we will assume without deciding that plaintiff’s original complaint, which was served within the three-year period permitted by see. 330.205, Stats., for commencing the action, was defective because of the failure to either allege: (1) That defendant’s dog was mischievous or vicious, or (2) specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendant with respect to the keeping of his dog.2 Based on this assumption, the principal issue presented by this appeal is whether this statute of limitations bars plaintiff’s cause of action because his complaint was not…