Carrow v. Haney
203 Mo.App. 485, 219 S.W. 710, 1920 Mo. App. LEXIS 196 (1920)
Rule of Law:
The owner or keeper of an animal known to possess vicious propensities is liable for injuries it inflicts upon any person lawfully on the premises, regardless of whether that person was specifically invited or had explicit permission.
Facts:
- A seven-year-old girl (the plaintiff) went to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Haney to collect money for a church entertainment ticket.
- Mrs. Haney had previously told the plaintiff to return on a Monday at dinner time to collect the money, as she did not have change at the time.
- On Monday, the plaintiff entered the Haneys' premises through an unlatched lattice gate.
- The Haneys' brown, brindle bulldog, which was loose on the back porch, ran out and bit the plaintiff severely on her legs.
- A 'Beware of the dog' sign was posted on the premises, but the seven-year-old plaintiff could not read it.
- Mr. Haney had previously told the plaintiff's father to be careful of the dog, stating it was vicious, and later admitted, 'Yes, I know he is but I am keeping any damned dog I want on my premises.'
- Mrs. Haney admitted to the plaintiff's mother that she knew the dog was bad, stating that was why she had the sign on the gate.
- The Haneys testified that they kept the dog as a pet, it had never bitten anyone, and the 'Beware of the dog' sign was a bluff to deter peddlers and tramps.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages in the circuit court (trial court).
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial.
- The circuit court sustained the plaintiff's motion for a new trial due to errors in jury instructions.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the order granting a new trial to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in granting a new trial after a jury verdict for the defendants, where the jury instructions incorrectly required the plaintiff to prove she was on the defendants' premises with their consent or permission, and also implied the wife (Mrs. Haney) could not be held liable?
Opinions:
Majority - Commissioner
Yes, the trial court correctly granted a new trial because the jury instructions were erroneous in requiring the plaintiff to prove she was on the premises with consent or permission, and Mrs. Haney could be held liable. The court found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider the case regarding the dog's vicious character and the defendants' knowledge of it. After scienter (knowledge of the animal's vicious propensity) is established, the owner or keeper is responsible for damages to any person who, without essential fault, is injured by the animal. Therefore, proof of a vicious propensity and the owners' knowledge of it renders them liable, regardless of whether the plaintiff was invited or had explicit permission, so long as she was on the premises for a lawful purpose. The instruction requiring the plaintiff to prove she was on the premises with consent or permission was therefore incorrect. Furthermore, Mrs. Haney could be held liable for her own negligence in permitting the known vicious dog to run loose and unguarded, especially since she invited the plaintiff onto the premises, and her negligence would concur with her husband's in causing the injury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the common law 'one bite rule' by emphasizing that the owner's knowledge of a dog's vicious propensities (scienter) is the paramount factor for liability. It reduces the importance of the injured party's specific invitee or licensee status, establishing that lawful presence on the property is sufficient. This ruling strengthens protection for individuals injured by known dangerous animals by preventing owners from escaping liability on the technicality of an uninvited entry. It also affirms that all co-owners or keepers can be held liable for their concurrent negligence, even if one owner is absent at the time of the incident.
