Legal Opinion

Bassett v. Houle

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided June 2, 1944Published

1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.

This is an action in tort brought by the plaintiffs, husband and wife, for injuries occasioned to the wife, Mary L. Bassett, who alleges that she was bitten by a dog who was owned or kept by the defendants. The plaintiff’s husband on motion duly made was allowed to become a party for compensatory damages.

This action is based on G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 140, sec. 155 as amended by the Acts of 1934, c. 320, sec. 18 which is as follows: “If any dog shall do any damage to either the body or the property of any person, the owner or keeper, or if the owner or keeper be, a minor, the parent or guardian…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Holton v. DenaroMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  2. Lacker v. StraussMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  3. Crowley v. FreemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  4. Raymond v. HodgsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
  5. Curran v. BurkhardtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API