Case Name: Frank W. Roswell vs. Edward J. Leslie
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1882-12-28
Citations: 133 Mass. 589
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank W. Roswell vs. Edward J. Leslie.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 589–590

Head Matter:
Frank W. Roswell vs. Edward J. Leslie.
Essex.
Nov. 8. —
Dec. 28, 1882.
C. Allen & Colburn, JJ., absent.
In an action for an injury done by a dog to a child four years and eleven months old, in which facts tending to show a shock to his nervous system have been testified to, evidence is admissible that, ever since his injury, he has shown signs of fright and excitement at the sight of any dog.
Tort, under the Gen. Sts. c. 88, § 59, to recover double the amount of damage sustained from the bite of a dog on November 15, 1880. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $100; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
H. F. Hurlburt, for the defendant.
W. H. Niles & G. J. Carr, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Devens, J.
The plaintiff, at the time of the injuries alleged to have been received from a dog of the defendant, was a child of four years and eleven months old. His father was allowed to testify to various facts tending to show a shock to the nervous system of the plaintiff; and also, against the defendant's objection, that, ever since the plaintiff was bitten, he had shown, in various ways described by the witness, signs of fright and excitement at the sight of any dog. The plaintiff was entitled to recover, among other things, for any injury to his nervous system, or for any loss in his mental or physical capacity. Ballou v. Farnum, 11 Allen, 73. Tyson v. Booth, 100 Mass. 258. Coleman v. New York New Haven Railroad, 106 Mass. 160. This evidence bore directly upon the question as to the condition in which the plaintiff was subseauently to the bite, and it was proper to be considered by the jury in determining whether and to what extent he had been injuriously affected thereby.
Exceptions overruled.