Jacoby v. Ockerhausen — 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 710

Majority

p. 710

Edward Jacoby, Resp't, v. Henry Ockerhausen, App’lt.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed February 9, 1891.)

Headnote

Animals—Liability op owner op vicious dos.

Plaintiff called at defendant’s house to collect a bill and was attacked and severely lacerated by four mastiff dogs who were unmuzzled and unsecured. Á servant of defendant testified that he would not dare to go in the place though the dogs knew him, and it appeared that one of them had bitten another person in defendant’s presence. Held, that their ferocity and defendant’s knowledge thereof were sufficiently shown to render him liable for not securing or controlling them.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict for $700.

The plaintiff Edward Jacoby, in the course of his lawful business, went, on the 8th day of January, 1890, to the defendant’s house early in the afternoon to collect a bill, where defendant’s four mastiff dogs attacked him without the slightest provocation; before the plaintiff was rescued from his perilous position they had thrown him to the ground, tearing his clothing, severely wounding him and lacerating his flesh in a terrible manner.

Finally a man who said he was an employe of Mr. Ockerhausen appeared with a heavy stick and rescued the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was then taken to his physician who attended him for some weeks; but so serious were his wounds thjit it was weeks after the services of the physician were dispensed with before he was able to get about comfortably.

Fred. E. Anderson, for app’lt; Clarence M. Smith, for resp’t.

Keeping ferocious dogs without confinement or restraint and in a condition to gratify their disposition to do mischief is negligence which is nearly allied to criminality. It manifests a disregard for human safety and even human life which merits and receives the condemnation of the law.

The liability of owners of animals for the injuries which they perpetrate is based upon their propensity to do mischief, and it is, therefore, the duty of all persons who keep animals which are mischievous or savage to so control them as to incapacitate them from committing injuries, and if they fail in the performance of that duty they become liable to respond in damages for the injuries they perpetrate.

In this case the plaintiff went to the residence of the defendant in the day time for a legitimate purpose, and while he was at the front door he was attacked by four dogs belonging to the defendant and was severely lacerated and torn by them, and even his

p. 711

life seems to have been placed in jeopardy. The dogs were unmuzzled and unsecured, and their ferocity is fully .established by their attack upon the plaintiff. Besides that the servant of the defendant said he would not dare go into the place even though the dogs knew him, and the wife of the defendant told the plaintiff she did not want him to come in for fear of the dogs.

The knowledge of the defendant of the savagery of the elder of the dogs which tore the plaintiff is established by the fact that she bit another person in his presence some time before she bit the plaintiff.

The evidence thus brought the case fully up to the requirements of the law and the jury gave the plaintiff a verdict which might well have been much larger.

All vicious dogs should be either killed or confined and persons who keep them are held to a rigorous rule of liability, because it is a grave offense against the law and against society to keep ferocious dogs and expose human life and human safety to their ferocity.

The judgment and order denying 'the motion for a new trial, should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Bardard, P. J., not sitting.