Court Opinion

ID: 9847001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:52:04.841926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:58.537476
License: Public Domain

SHINN, P. J.
I concur in the judgment. There was no active negligence of the defendants. They merely created a dangerous condition for intruders in the portion of the premises set aside for the dog, and if he had been in sight all the time, trespassers upon his domain would have had only themselves to blame if he chased them away, even by the use of extreme measures. Any grown-up should have gumption enough to stay out of the reach of a chained watchdog, especially one as faithful and efficient as a well-trained German shepherd. But the defendants’ dog had a large packing crate in which to nap during the daytime, when his presence might go unnoticed. He would then constitute a pitfall for the unwary. Defendants should have maintained a warning *776sign. Their failure to do so rendered them liable for injuries, even to trespassers who were unaware of the presence of the dog. For this reason, alone, I agree there was a liability to plaintiff.
A petition for a rehearing was denied April 15, 1958, and appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 21, 1958. Schauer, J., and McComb, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.