Case Name: ELLINGSEN v. LINDSTRAND
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-07-23
Citations: 105 N.Y.S. 598
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELLINGSEN v. LINDSTRAND.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 105
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
(121 App. Div. 268)
ELLINGSEN v. LINDSTRAND.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Divisioti, Second Department.
July 23, 1907.)
Animals—Personal Injuries by Dogs—Actions—Question for Jury.
In an action for being bitten by a dog, wliere there was evidence from which the jury could have found that the dog was ferocious, that he had been kept by the defendant for several years with knowledge of the vicious disposition, and that plaintiff was without fault, it was error to dismiss the case.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 2, Animals, § 208.1
Appeal from Municipal Court of New York.
Action by Edward Ellingsen, by his guardian ad litem, against Carl G, E. Eindstrand, to recover damages sustained by plaintiff by being bitten by a dog owned by defendant. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENICS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, and RICH, JJ.
William Adams Robinson, for appellant.
Dean Potter, for respondent.

Opinion:
RICH, J.
The only question to be considered is whether the plaintiff made out a case entitling him to go to the jury. While the evidence might not be regarded as entirely satisfactory, yet there was sufficient, if the jury believed it, upon which to base a finding that this was a ferocious dog, kept by defendant for several years, with knowledge of his vicious disposition, and that the attack on plaintiff was not invited; that he was not at fault. Plaintiff entered the stable where the dog was confined, at the request of. defendant's stableman in charge to hold a lantern, and was immediately attacked by the dog and severely bitten.
We think the plaintiff made out a case entitling him to go to the jury upon all the questions involved, and the judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. All concur.