Source: http://massachusettslandlords.com/nutt-v-florio-dogs/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:05:19+00:00

Document:
Middlesex. April 14, 2009. – October 19, 2009.
Present: COHEN, KATZMANN, & GRAINGER, JJ.
The case was heard by , J., on motions for summary judgment.
of summary judgment for the defendants and remand for further proceedings.
favorable to [the plaintiff], as the nonmoving party.” v. , 436 Mass.
material fact against the party moving for summary judgment. . v.
Overland Road inWaltham (premises), which was owned by the defendants.
of the municipal leash law.
mounted their children at various times and Hamblett on another occasion.
Keane had only one pit bull.
biting cases than any other breed.
judgments, and appeals are subject to de novo review of this court. See v.
, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 158, 161 (2007).
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 281 (1965).
of a dog is liable . . . for injury resulting from an act of the dog without proof . . .
and even without proof that the dog in fact had any such propensity.” v.
not make a landowner an insurer of her property. , at 709.
v. ., 239 Mass. 232, 234 (1921); v.
common law as ordinarily harmless animals.” v.
of harm.” v. , 62 Mass. App. Ct. 475, 484 (2004). See v.
prevent the accident that occurred”).
FN1 By his mother and next friend, Elise Hamblett.
Emil A. FlorioM&A Living Trust and the Clara E. FlorioM&A Living Trust.
are not parties to this appeal.
Keane, who is not a party to this appeal.
sufficient” for a “no-knock” warrant to issue. , at 579.
that the defendant knew of the dog’s dangerous propensities. . at 737.
and, therefore, could have observed the dog’s aggressive behavior).

References: v. 
 v.

 v.

 § 281
 v.

v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.