Alfano v. Stutsman
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
GARRARD, Judge.
The appellees have filed a petition for rehearing asserting that our decision herein misconstrued the findings of the trial court and that taken as -a whole the findings disclose that while the requisite viciousness to impose strict liability was not proved, the necessary knowledge to impose liability for negligence was established. The argument is in error partially because it proceeds upon the premise that strict liability arises when the owner or keeper of a dog has knowledge of its dangerous propensities. Regrettably our opinion lends some credence to the argument because…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Doe v. BarnettIndiana Court of Appeals · 1969
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. ClarkIndiana Court of Appeals · 1912
- Drew v. GrossOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Royer v. Pryor Ex Rel. PryorIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
- Gardner v. KoenigSupreme Court of Kansas · 1961
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ross v. LoweIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
- Poznanski Ex Rel. Poznanski v. HorvathIndiana Supreme Court · 2003
- Plesha v. Edmonds Ex Rel. EdmondsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1999
- Burgin by and Through Akers v. TolleIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986
- Evans v. Schenk Cattle Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.