Case Name: Peter Sindak, Appellee, v. Stanley Jaskowiak, Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-04-30
Citations: 205 Ill. App. 420
Docket Number: Gen. No. 22,922
Parties: Peter Sindak, Appellee, v. Stanley Jaskowiak, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 420–421

Head Matter:
Peter Sindak, Appellee, v. Stanley Jaskowiak, Appellant.
Gen. No. 22,922.
(Not to Tbe reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Animals, § 46 —when verdict for damages for injuries from hite of dog is not excessive. A verdict for $900, reduced by re mittitur to $600, held not excessive where a man was bitten in the leg by the defendant’s dog, and where the leg bled profusely and the laceration of the muscles caused a permanent condition, and plaintiff was under the care of a physician for nearly three months and suffered an actual loss of twenty weeks’ time at $18 a week.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habbt P. Dolan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 30, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action Tby Peter Sindak, plaintiff, against Stanley Jaskowiak, defendant, to recover damages, for injuries sustained by being bitten by defendant’s dog. From a judgment for plaintiff for $600, defendant appeals.
J. S. Dudley, for appellant.
Vincent G. Gallagher and Ernest Messner, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Animals, § 43 —when evidence is sufficient to sustain judgment for injuries to person by dog. In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as the result of being bitten by a dog of the defendant, where it appeared that the plaintiff was visiting at a house located in the rear of the lot on which the defendant's saloon was located; that as he was leaving the premises, the dog, which was being led by a chain, jumped up and bit plaintiff, and that the vicious character of the dog was Imown to the defendant, held that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff would not be disturbed.