The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-08-29
KEEPER OF DOG Is
LIABLE FOR DAMAGE
Not Necessary to Prove That
Defendant Is Owner in
Such Cases.
HUSBAND Is RESPONSIBLE

IL 10 z 'h'N ~
sary for a person to be the owner OF a
dog in order to charge such person VIII
liability for injuries II may 'nhict. IL
Is enough " such person is the Keeper
of the dog that IL. that the dog lis Kept
by authority OF such person. 1t Is on
his ground that a husband as the head
Of the household Is held liable for dam
ages committed by a dog owned by ms
wife or child. or any person who Is one
OF the household.
Burch VS.. Iowary, lO9 y. w. Rep.
2s2 Gowa. 190s) Bundschuh VS.. Mayer
81 Hun. III tSew York, 1880 NC
Laughlin VS.. Kemp. l52 Mass. llS'o) :
Strouse VS.. Lelph. lOl Ala. 1873 Em-
mons vs.. Stevens. ~ y. ]. J.. S49 tl9oo) :
McGurn VS.. Grubnau. 81 Pa. superior
CT. 45i I90S).
A person also Is liable who merely
harbors a dog or permits II 10 resort
habituaily to his premises. II In neces-
sary then TO ascertain what constitutes
the harboring OF "A dog within the mean
ing Of the law. In Wisconsin where a
dog had been around defendants place
three or four years, and he II MS
folks had fed II ard 1t was In the ha
OF going with him and was at the
house when the injury occurred, 1t was
held he was keeper of the dog. Gnu
ter VS.. Connors. 81 Wisconsin. 32l
GSS3).
II Is not necessary, however. that a
dog should resort to a PERSONS premises
for as long a period as three or o
years before such person becomes an
swtrable as the %harborer Of the dog,
II a person harbors the dog on his
premises. as owners usually do. then he
Is considered liable for the wrongs II
commits irrespective Of the length OF
time for which he has harbored II. And
this is 50 even under a statute by which
only the owners OF dogs are liable IN
certain cases. such harboring being con-
sidered equivalent to ownership.-OHara
vs.. Miller, 20 y. W. Rep. 760 uowal
1854: schultz va. Griffith, % y. w.
Rep. AS Is9D.
In the case OF Barrett W. Maiden 4
Melrose II. Il. Co. SIS Mass. l0l Cs61)
the railroad company permitted a dog
TO resort to it's premises for several
weeks before 1t inflicted the injury COM
planned Of. The mere fact that "A per-
son feeds a hungry dog or shelters II
temporarily is not enough to charge
such person with the damage such dog
may do. Nor is a person liable as the
harborer of a dog merely because a dog
without tie consent of the owner comes
on the premises and seeks to remain
there.
For illustration a person while passing
the defendants coal yard was attacked
suddenly by a dog. which then turned
and ran into the yard and under the Of
flee. II was shown that the dog had
been about the premises two or three
weeks before and that afterward the
defendant. though denying all knowledge
OF nov the dog got there. admitted that
II had pups under the office and fire.
quently attacked men entering ana leav-
ing the yard. II was held there was
nothing to show the defendant owned,
harbored or had control OF the dog.
A person may be liable for an injury
caused by a dog which Is kept by such
person without the consent n against
the wishes OF the owner of the dog,
Mitchell w. Chase. So Me. l12. This was
a case where defendant formerly owned
the dog, had sold II and was at the time
h~arboring i against the wishes of the
owner, the dog having persisted in re-
turning. II is not a question of rightful
keeper. and a thief who has stolen a
dog will be liable for its acts the same
as II he were the rightful owner OF the
dog.
In an action for damage done by 4
dog IL Is enough II the person injured
alleges that the person sued Is the keeper
OF the dog, And this is so also under
a statute by which the owner or keeper
Is liable.-Smith We. Montgomery, -
Me. IFS.
But If n plaintiff alleges that a per-
son 10 both the owner and keeper h"
must prove it.-Buddington VS.. Shearer.
81 Mass. ~ lsSs). Under a statute
making the owner or keeper Of "a dog
liable for injuries caused by 1t the owner
aud keeper are not Jointly and several!v
liable. After recovery OF a judgment for
such an injury against one Of them
which remains unsatisfled by reason Of
his taking the poor debtors path an ac-
tion cannot be maintained against thu
other FOR the same injury.-Mass-Puh.
~. chap. log. sect 90 Calvin VS.. Parker,
l54 Mass. SAG NSel).