Sullivan v. Goss

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sullivan v. Goss

210 S.E.2d 366, 133 Ga. App. 217, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1022

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 22, 1974

Docket49661

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 210 S.E.2d 366 (Sullivan v. Goss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sullivan v. Goss, 210 S.E.2d 366, 133 Ga. App. 217, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1022 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Pannell, Presiding Judge.

This case is an action by plaintiff seeking to recover damages against the defendant because the defendant’s dog came upon plaintiff’s property and killed plaintiff’s game chickens, or "Slasher” birds. There were two alleged occasions. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant as to the first occasion, but denied such a motion as to the subsequent occasion. The jury being unable to reach a verdict, a mistrial was declared. Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the mistrial as to the last occasion. Held:

The rule as to scienter, or knowledge on the part of the owner of a vicious or dangerous propensity of the dog, if one exists (see Connell v. Bland, 122 Ga. App. 507 (177 SE2d 833)), has no application here in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1969 (Ga. L. 1969, pp. [218]*218831, 832; Code Ann. § 62-2004) to wit: "The owner, or if no owner can be found, the custodian exercising care and control over any dog which goes upon the land of another and causes injury, death or damage directly or indirectly to any domestic animal which is normally and usually described as livestock or fowl, shall be civilly liable to the owner of the domestic animal or fowl, for damages, death or injury caused by the dog. The liability of the owner or custodian of the dog shall include consequential damages. The provisions in this section are to be considered cumulative of other remedies provided by law. There is no intent to do away with or limit other causes of action which might inure to the owner of any domestic animal or fowl.”

Argued September 4, 1974 Decided October 22, 1974 Rehearing denied November 6, 1974. Bouhan, Williams & Levy, Edwin D. Robb, Jr., for appellant. Lee & Clark, Fred S. Clark, for appellee.

The evidence adduced being such as to authorize a finding that the defendant’s dog came upqn the plaintiffs property and killed some of his chickens, the denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the mistrial is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb, J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially.

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

Pannell, Presiding Judge.

This case is an action by plaintiff seeking to recover damages against the defendant because the defendant’s dog came upon plaintiff’s property and killed plaintiff’s game chickens, or "Slasher” birds. There were two alleged occasions. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant as to the first occasion, but denied such a motion as to the subsequent occasion. The jury being unable to reach a verdict, a mistrial was declared. Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the mistrial as to the last occasion. Held:

The rule as to scienter, or knowledge on the part of the owner of a vicious or dangerous propensity of the dog, if one exists (see Connell v. Bland, 122 Ga. App. 507 (177 SE2d 833)), has no application here in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1969 (Ga. L. 1969, pp. [218]*218831, 832; Code Ann. § 62-2004) to wit: "The owner, or if no owner can be found, the custodian exercising care and control over any dog which goes upon the land of another and causes injury, death or damage directly or indirectly to any domestic animal which is normally and usually described as livestock or fowl, shall be civilly liable to the owner of the domestic animal or fowl, for damages, death or injury caused by the dog. The liability of the owner or custodian of the dog shall include consequential damages. The provisions in this section are to be considered cumulative of other remedies provided by law. There is no intent to do away with or limit other causes of action which might inure to the owner of any domestic animal or fowl.”

Argued September 4, 1974 Decided October 22, 1974 Rehearing denied November 6, 1974. Bouhan, Williams & Levy, Edwin D. Robb, Jr., for appellant. Lee & Clark, Fred S. Clark, for appellee.

The evidence adduced being such as to authorize a finding that the defendant’s dog came upqn the plaintiffs property and killed some of his chickens, the denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the mistrial is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb, J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 S.E.2d 366, 133 Ga. App. 217, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-goss-gactapp-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack