Mondry v. Maloney

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Mondry v. Maloney

185 N.W.2d 520, 289 Minn. 539, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1275

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 19, 1971

DocketNo. 42172

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 N.W.2d 520 (Mondry v. Maloney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mondry v. Maloney, 185 N.W.2d 520, 289 Minn. 539, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1275 (Mich. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a dog-bite action by plaintiffs James M. Mondry, a child, and Howard J. Mondry, his father, against Donald J. Maloney, owner of a dog, brought pursuant to Minn. St. 347.22, which provides in part:

“If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he may lawfully be in any urban exea, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained.”

Plaintiffs moved for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict for defendant or for a new trial, on the sole ground that, as a matter of law, there was no provocation for the dog to bite plaintiff child. The motion was denied.

We hold that whether provocation existed was an issue of fact properly submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions in the words of the statute. The sole testimony to support plaintiffs’ burden of proof was the uncontradicted testimony of plaintiff child. But the jury was not compelled to give full credit to his testimony without considering either the internal inconsistencies in the testimony or the external inferences of improbability to be drawn from the physical facts and circumstances disclosed by the record. Backman v. Fitch, 272 Minn. 143, 137 N. W. (2d) 574.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is a dog-bite action by plaintiffs James M. Mondry, a child, and Howard J. Mondry, his father, against Donald J. Maloney, owner of a dog, brought pursuant to Minn. St. 347.22, which provides in part:

“If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he may lawfully be in any urban exea, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained.”

Plaintiffs moved for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict for defendant or for a new trial, on the sole ground that, as a matter of law, there was no provocation for the dog to bite plaintiff child. The motion was denied.

We hold that whether provocation existed was an issue of fact properly submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions in the words of the statute. The sole testimony to support plaintiffs’ burden of proof was the uncontradicted testimony of plaintiff child. But the jury was not compelled to give full credit to his testimony without considering either the internal inconsistencies in the testimony or the external inferences of improbability to be drawn from the physical facts and circumstances disclosed by the record. Backman v. Fitch, 272 Minn. 143, 137 N. W. (2d) 574.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 N.W.2d 520, 289 Minn. 539, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mondry-v-maloney-minn-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack