Rossi v. DelDuca
181 N.E.2d 591, 344 Mass. 66 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who enters the land of another under the privilege of private necessity to prevent serious harm to themselves is not "committing a trespass" within the meaning of a dog-bite statute that would otherwise bar recovery for injuries.
Facts:
- Eight-year-old Patricia Rossi and a friend were walking home from school.
- A German Weimaraner dog began to approach them, causing the girls to become frightened.
- To escape the dog, the girls ran down Cambridge Street, which they discovered was a dead-end street.
- They then cut through an open field, which defendant Ernest V. DelDuca used for his business with the owner's permission and had "full control" over.
- The Weimaraner continued to follow the girls into the field.
- In the field, two great Dane dogs owned by DelDuca, which were kept there to guard equipment, attacked and seriously injured Patricia Rossi.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Rossi, through her father John Rossi, sued Ernest V. DelDuca in a trial court for personal injuries. John Rossi also sued for his own medical expenses.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned verdicts in favor of both plaintiffs.
- The defendant, DelDuca, filed a motion for a directed verdict, arguing that the plaintiffs could not recover as a matter of law.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
- The defendant, as the appellant, appealed the denial of his motion to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person's entry onto another's land, made out of a reasonable fear of serious harm from a chasing animal, constitute "committing a trespass" under a statute that bars recovery for a dog bite sustained by a trespasser?
Opinions:
Majority - Spalding, J.
No. A person's entry onto land under such circumstances is privileged and does not constitute a trespass that bars recovery under the dog-bite statute. The court reasons that the common law privilege to enter another's land to prevent serious harm to oneself applies here. This privilege means the person is not a mere trespasser but is rightfully on the land due to necessity. Therefore, the possessor of the land is not immune from liability. The court concluded that the legislature did not intend for the trespasser exception in the strict liability statute to bar recovery for a child who entered the property under duress to escape a perceived threat.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the meaning of "trespass" within a strict liability statute by incorporating the common law defense of private necessity. It establishes that the term is not to be interpreted in its strictest technical sense, but in light of surrounding circumstances and established legal privileges. The ruling narrows the scope of the trespasser defense for dog owners, making them potentially liable even to uninvited entrants if those individuals entered the property to protect themselves from harm. This precedent requires courts to look beyond the mere fact of unpermitted entry and examine the entrant's motivation and the reasonableness of their actions.
Unlock the full brief for Rossi v. DelDuca