Majority
p. 251Joseph Hubert, Resp't, v. Sarah E. Bedell, App'lt. (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department, Filed December 12, 1892.)
Headnote
1. Animals—-Vicious.Plaintiff, on entering defendant’s yard to cut grass which had been given him by her manager, was attacked and bitten by her dog, which had previously bitten others. Reid, that defendant was liable for the damages sustained.
3. Same—Damages.
In such case a verdict for $191 is not excessive.
3. Same—Evidence.
Proof of plaintiff’s daily earnings is admissible in such an action, although their loss is not specially pleaded, as such loss is the necessary result of the injury.
p. 252
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on verdict for $191.19.
Action for injuries sustained by the bite of defendant’s dog.
Arthur S. Tompkins, for app’lt;
Snider & Hopper, for resp’t.
The plaintiff went upon the defendant’s premises to cut grass which had been given him by defendant’s manager for the cutting. Almost as soon as he entered the yard, without any reason, he was savagely attacked by a large dog belonging to the defendant and bitten severely. The damages were not excessive. It was proper to prove the daily earnings of the plaintiff. Such loss was involved in the ordinary and necessary result of an injury and was not special or peculiar damages which needed being pleaded. Jutte v. Hughes, 67 N. Y., 267 .
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Dykman, J., concurs; Pratt, J., not sitting.