Court Opinion

ID: 9604761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:26:31.864843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:23.759274
License: Public Domain

BUTTLER, P. J.,
dissenting.
Plaintiffs complaint alleges that “defendants were the owners of a dog while knowing him to be ferocious, vicious and mischievous” and that defendants were negligent, because each of them knew of the vicious propensity of the dog and his inclination to attack and bite people.
On defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the only evidence is that defendant Alphonso King, in 1974 when *353he owned another dog, posted on a gate a ready-made sign reading, “beware of dog, keep gate closed.” He put up the sign because utility workers occasionally let the dog stray by leaving the gate open. After he acquired Jodi, the dog involved in this case, he left the sign up for the same reason. In addition, there are affidavits from the two defendants which state that Jodi was friendly, never growled and would allow himself to be picked up. A neighbor stated in her affidavit that the dog had never given her the impression that he was nasty or vicious.
Plaintiff did not counter any of that evidence; she relies solely on the sign. In Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation, 284 Or 695, 703, 588 P2d 1100 (1978), the court quoted with approval from 2 Harper and James, Law of Torts § 19.4, to determine whether there is a genuine issue of a material fact:
“The test is often expressed in this way: where from the facts most favorable to the plaintiff the nonexistence of the fact to be inferred is just as probable as its existence (or more probable than its existence), the conclusion that it exists is a matter of speculation, surmise, and conjecture, and a jury will not be permitted to draw it.”
The majority apparently holds that, because of the sign, a jury could infer that the dog had dangerous propensities and that those propensities were known to the defendants. However, the presence of the sign is explained without contradiction, and its mere presence does not, on those uncontradicted facts, make it any more probable that defendants were aware of the dog’s dangerous propensities than that they were not.
Accordingly, I would affirm the summary judgment and, therefore, dissent.