Case Name: Legault, Appellant, vs. Malacker, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1914-03-17
Citations: 156 Wis. 507
Docket Number: 
Parties: Legault, Appellant, vs. Malacker, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
Legault, Appellant, vs. Malacker, Respondent.
February 27
March 17, 1914.
Dogs: Injury to person: Viciousness: Scienter: Pleading.
1. Sec. 1620, Stats., makes allegation and proof of scienter unnecessary as well in case of injuries to persons as in case of injuries to cattle by dogs.
2. A complaint which alleges that a dog attacked and wounded a person who at the time was where he might lawfully be and in the exercise of ordinary care, is sufficient without alleging that the dog was vicious and mischievous. The law no longer “allows a dog his first bite.”
Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Marinette county: W. B. QuiNLAN, Circuit Judge.
Reversed.
The action is brought by a father to recover damages resulting to him by reason of the illness and death of his minor son. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendant owned a certain dog and that on a certain day while the plaintiff’s son, in the exercise of due care, was lawfully in and upon the highway, said dog attacked and bit him, so wounding him that he subsequently died as a result of his said injuries. Resulting damages are also fully alleged. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the plaintiff appeals.
For the appellant there was a brief by Gilbertson, Lehr, Reitman & Kiefer, attorneys, and Lehr, Kiefer & Reitman and J. Elmer Lehr, of counsel, and oral argument by J. Elmer Lehr.
For the respondent there was a brief by Eastman, Goldman & Fairchild, and oral argument by II. R. Goldman.

Opinion:
Winslow, O. J.
The respondent claims that the complaint should allege (1) that the dog was vicious or mischievous, and (2) that the defendant had knowledge of that fact.
Upon these contentions the court holds:
1. Sec. 1620, Stats. 1911, makes allegation and proof of scienter unnecessary as well in case of injuries to persons as in case of injuries to cattle by dogs. The doubts expressed in Kertschacke v. Ludwig, 28 Wis. 430, and Slinger v. Henneman, 38 Wis. 504, are not considered well founded.
2. Where a complaint alleges that a dog attacked and wounded a person who at the time was where he might lawfully be and in the exercise of ordinary care, it is unnecessary to go further and allege that the dog was vicious or mischievous. Such a dog is necessarily vicious and a separate allegation to that effect is unnecessary. The law no longer "allows a dog his first bite," as was said to be the case before the passage of the law abolishing proof of scienter.
By the Court. — Order reversed, and action remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.