Woodbridge v. Marks - 17 A.D. 139, 45 N.Y.S. 156 (App. Div. 3rd Dept. 1897)

Rule:

The mere keeping of a ferocious dog, knowing him to be such, for the purpose of defending one's premises, is not in itself unlawful. And when injury follows from one so kept, the manner of his confinement and the circumstances attending the injury are all to be considered in determining the owner's liability.

Facts:

Defendant's dog, at the time of the injury, was chained upon his premises. Defendant's dog bit plaintiff, when plaintiff entered defendant's premises in the evening, in search of a man who worked on the premises. Plaintiff filed an action against defendant for damages caused by the dog bite. The state supreme court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the trial court denied defendant's motion for a new trial. Defendant challenged the trial court's decision.

Issue:

Was the owner of a vicious dog, who kept such dog chained, responsible in every instance for any injury the dog may do to a person while so chained? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the mere keeping of a ferocious dog, knowing him to be ferocious, for the purpose of defending one's premises, was not in itself unlawful. Furthermore, the court noted that there was nothing unusually or unnaturally vicious about the dog. Therefore, the court held that trial court erred when it determined that defendant was liable.