Legal Opinion
Morris v. Weatherly
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 25, 1992No. C2-92-264, C0-92-330PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DANIEL P. FOLEY, Judge. *
This is a consolidated appeal involving two actions for injuries caused by a dog under a strict liability theory pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (1990). Appellants in both cases contend the statute does not apply where the dog did not physically contact the injured party. We affirm.
FACTS
Morris v. Weatherly (C2-92-264)
On July 26, 1987, as respondent Leonard Morris was bicycling on a public road in Dakota County, he saw appellant Lawrence Weatherly’s collie approaching him from behind. The dog was at “a dead run,” “running low to the ground” with “his ears laid…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Boitz v. PreblichCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Lewellin Ex Rel. Heirs of Lewellin v. HuberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mueller v. TheisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- Smith v. KernsMontana Supreme Court · 1997
- Sharp v. WilliamsUtah Supreme Court · 1996
- Anderson v. ChristophersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- McGrellis v. BromwellSupreme Court of Delaware · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.