Citation Numbers: 9 A.2d 811, 126 Conn. 121
Judges: JENNINGS, J.
Filed Date: 12/6/1939
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The plaintiff was bitten by dogs owned by the defendants and secured a verdict. The defendants appeal from the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict and from the judgment, claiming error in the charge.
The complaint was in the usual form. The defendants filed a special defense to the effect that the plaintiff *Page 122 was the keeper of the dogs at the time the injuries were suffered. The plaintiff denied this special defense. The issue thus raised was not submitted to the jury. The assignments of error on the two appeals are set up in various ways but all questions are included in this one ruling.
Since the fundamental question is whether the issue upon the defendants' special defense should have been submitted to the jury, the evidence should be considered from the standpoint most favorable to them. Plaintiff and defendants were neighbors and friends. The defendants owned three setters which were kept in a kennel and runway back of their house. The defendants planned to go to Boston for five days and asked the plaintiff to feed and water the dogs while they were away. The plaintiff agreed to do this as he had on previous occasions. He was instructed not to let the dogs out of the runway. On the second day after the defendants left the plaintiff went to the defendants' house and let the dogs out while he was preparing their food. While they were outside they attacked and injured, first the wife of the plaintiff and then the plaintiff.
The question which arises on these facts under the ruling of the trial court is, could the jury have reasonably come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a keeper?
General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1935, 1358c, defines keeper as "any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog." To harbor means to afford lodging to, to shelter, to give a refuge to. Webster's New International Dictionary. McCarthy v. Daunis,
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Lanna v. Konen , 119 Conn. 646 ( 1935 )
McCarthy v. Daunis , 117 Conn. 307 ( 1933 )
National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead , 34 S. Ct. 209 ( 1914 )
manuel-mercado-v-the-us-customs-service-the-commissioner-of-customs , 873 F.2d 641 ( 1989 )
Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church , 286 Conn. 152 ( 2008 )
State v. Johnson , 140 Conn. 560 ( 1954 )
Silano v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. , 85 Conn. App. 450 ( 2004 )
Vasquez v. Hooks, No. Cv91-0394001 S (Feb. 10, 1992) , 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1664 ( 1992 )
May v. Scherber, No. 31 18 74 (Feb. 10, 1993) , 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1513 ( 1993 )
Thomas v. Costanti, No. Cv 00 0160056 (Nov. 14, 2000) , 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 13955 ( 2000 )
Dilion v. Burke, No. Cv93-0529578 S (Jan. 28, 1997) , 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 679 ( 1997 )
Jones v. New Britain Housing Authority, No. Cv98-0488546s (... , 24 Conn. L. Rptr. 490 ( 1999 )
Altieri v. Depalma, No. Cv95-0372540 S (Aug. 13, 1996) , 17 Conn. L. Rptr. 439 ( 1996 )
Simmons v. Welch , 48 Conn. Supp. 564 ( 2003 )
McCorquodale v. Agnone, No. Cv 89-0282135 (Jan. 13, 1994) , 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 309 ( 1994 )
State v. Jiminez , 22 Conn. Super. Ct. 340 ( 1961 )
Esposito v. Toys \"R\" US, No. 382699 (Dec. 26, 1997) , 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12837 ( 1997 )
Popolizio v. Popolizio, No. Cvnh 97109-8475 (Nov. 13, 1997) , 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 12674 ( 1997 )
Horton v. Agee, No. Cv 920518863s (Sep. 5, 1995) , 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 120 ( 1995 )
Stewart v. Chapman, No. Cv 96-0559634 S (Apr. 6, 1999) , 24 Conn. L. Rptr. 352 ( 1999 )
Stupak v. Lindsay, No. Cv97 05970 (Mar. 2, 1999) , 24 Conn. L. Rptr. 8 ( 1999 )
Quinones v. New Britain Housing Auth, No. Cv 89 0370093 S (... , 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 1277 ( 1992 )