Case ID: ny-st-rep_34/html/0899-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Simpson, an Infant, Resp’t, v. Charles Griggs, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 8, 1890.)
    
    Animals — Employee not liable eon injubies caused by vicious dog BELONGING TO EMPLOYE.
    An employer does not harbor a dog because he knows that his hired man has one in his family, which occupies a separate residence, and is not liable • for injuries caused by such dog where he has no personal knowledge of its evil qualities and no power over him.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on a verdict, and from order denying motion for a new trial.
    Action for damages resulting from the bite of a vicious dog.
    
      IT. H. Hustis, for app’lt; Schlosser & Wood, for resp’t.
   Barnard, P. J.

The defendant and others occupied, under a lease from Mrs. Hunt, a farm in Wappingers, Dutchess county. There was a brick yard on the farm which was operated by Griggs & Co. They employed one Ward to work the farm. Ward occupied a farm house on the premises, and the defendant and his partner had the proceeds of the farm. Ward occupied the house as a hired man and the occupancy was a part of the compensation for the labor of Ward. Ward brought a dog with him when he went there, and this dog was kept by Ward at the house he occupied on the farm of Griggs’ land in Newburgh. While Ward denied his ownership of the dog, it is manifest that he did own him and bad absolute and sole control over him. The dog was vicious and bit the plaintiff. The defendant knew nothing of the bad disposition of the dog other than is implied from a knowledge by Ward that the dog was savage and would bite mankind. The defendant’s liability was based upon the proof that he employed Ward and Ward brought the dog with him, and that the defendant’s firm had the proceeds of the farm, and that the employee Ward occasionally used the dog to churn butter which was made for the farm. The employer does not harbor a dog because he knows that his hired man has one in his family which occupies a separate residence. Auchmuty v. Ham, 1 Denio, 495.

The defendant knew nothing of the evil qualities of the dog personally, and had no power over him.

The judgment and order denying a new trial should, therefore, be reversed, with costs to abide event.

Pratt, J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.