Voelker v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
190 So. 2d 136 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by their animal if they had prior knowledge of the dog's vicious or dangerous propensities. Additionally, a plaintiff may not recover damages for their own mental pain and suffering occasioned by a non-fatal injury to another person.
Facts:
- Richard J. Voelker, III, a three-year-old boy, lived near the residence of the owner of a dog named 'Prince'.
- The dog, Prince, was known by neighbors to be dangerous.
- On a previous occasion, Prince had bitten its owner's grandson in the face.
- Following the first bite, the grandson's parents and the owner's own wife pleaded with the owner to get rid of the dog, but he refused.
- The dog had also bitten a delivery boy in a separate prior incident.
- While Richard was playing in a neighbor's yard, Prince was seen chasing and killing a cat.
- Immediately thereafter, witnesses heard a commotion and found Richard in the same yard, covered in blood.
- Richard told his mother that 'Prince' had bitten him, and medical experts confirmed his extensive wounds were consistent with dog bites.
Procedural Posture:
- The child's father, Richard J. Voelker, Jr., sued the dog's owner and his insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, in a Louisiana trial court for damages on behalf of his son and for himself and his wife.
- Defendants filed an exception of no cause of action against the parents' personal claims for mental anguish and emotional suffering.
- The trial court maintained the exception, dismissing the parents' personal claims before trial.
- The remaining claims were tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the father, awarding $15,000 for the child's injuries and $7,500 for medical expenses.
- The trial court entered a judgment reflecting the jury's verdict and a separate judgment dismissing the parents' personal claims.
- The defendants (the dog owner and his insurer) appealed the judgment awarding damages to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
- The parents answered the appeal, asking the appellate court to increase the damage awards and to reverse the dismissal of their personal claims for mental anguish.
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 a dog owner liable for injuries inflicted by their dog when the owner had prior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities from previous attacks?
Opinions:
Majority - Samuel, Judge
Yes, a dog owner is liable for injuries inflicted by their dog if the owner was aware of the dog's dangerous nature. Under Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315 and 2321, while an owner is not liable for an animal that suddenly displays a vicious nature without prior warning, liability attaches if there has been a prior occurrence sufficient to give the owner notice of the animal's dangerous propensities. In this case, the record contains 'abundant competent testimony' that the dog was vicious and that its owner had full knowledge of this fact, citing the prior attacks on his own grandson and a delivery boy. The court found the evidence of the owner's knowledge and the dog's viciousness to be overwhelming, making liability clear. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the parents' personal claims for mental anguish, citing settled jurisprudence that a plaintiff may not recover for mental suffering caused by witnessing a non-fatal injury to another.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the established principle of owner liability for domestic animals in Louisiana, which functions as a modified 'one-bite rule.' The decision clarifies that once an owner is on notice of an animal's dangerous propensities—through a prior bite or other aggressive behavior—they are held strictly liable for subsequent harm. It demonstrates that a single, known prior incident is sufficient to establish the knowledge element required for liability. Furthermore, the court's refusal to allow the parents' claim for mental anguish reinforces the traditional, narrow view of liability for emotional distress, precluding recovery for bystanders in cases of non-fatal injury to a third party.
