Kling v. US Fire Insurance Company
146 So. 2d 635 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case that their property was damaged by a domesticated animal with known vicious propensities, the burden of proof shifts to the animal's owner to prove they were free from fault, meaning they had no knowledge of the animal's dangerous nature.
Facts:
- T. Frank Smith owned a 75-pound Boxer named 'Mike'.
- Joseph B. Kling, Jr., a neighbor of Smith, owned a 9-pound Toy Terrier named 'Penny'.
- Prior to the incident in question, Smith's Boxer had chased and caught a neighbor's cat, holding it in its mouth until the cat's owner intervened.
- Smith was also aware of two separate incidents where his Boxer was accused of biting neighborhood children, one of whom was left with a tooth mark.
- Smith investigated these prior incidents but concluded his dog was not at fault.
- On January 25, 1960, Smith's Boxer chased, caught, and repeatedly bit Kling's Toy Terrier.
- The Toy Terrier sustained severe injuries, including a ruptured spleen and a hemorrhage in the lung, and died later that night.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph B. Kling, Jr. (plaintiff) sued T. Frank Smith and his insurer, U. S. Fire Insurance Company (defendants), in a Louisiana trial court for damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $555.00.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the owner of a domesticated dog liable for damages when his dog attacks and kills another dog, where the owner had prior knowledge of several incidents suggesting his dog's aggressive propensities?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellis, Judge (on rehearing)
Yes. An owner is liable for damages caused by their animal if they knew or should have known of the animal's dangerous propensities. The court found that the incident was an unprovoked attack, not a mutual fight. Kling established a prima facie case by showing that Smith's Boxer fatally injured his dog and by providing evidence of prior incidents (attacking a cat and biting two children) that put Smith on notice of the Boxer's dangerous propensities. At that point, the burden of proof shifted to Smith to prove he lacked knowledge of his dog's vicious nature. Smith failed to meet this burden, as his personal investigations and conclusions that his dog was not at fault were insufficient to absolve him of liability. Notice of a propensity to cause harm, even if in play, is sufficient to impose liability on an owner.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the burden-shifting framework in Louisiana tort law for damages caused by domesticated animals. It clarifies that a plaintiff must first present a prima facie case of the animal's vicious propensities, after which the owner must prove their lack of knowledge. The case lowers the threshold for what constitutes 'knowledge,' suggesting that even seemingly minor prior incidents, or those the owner dismisses, can be sufficient to put the owner on notice. This holding places a greater responsibility on animal owners to investigate and respond to any report of their animal's aggression, rather than simply concluding their pet is not at fault.
