Van Bergen v. Eulberg

Supreme Court of Iowa

Van Bergen v. Eulberg

82 N.W. 483, 111 Iowa 139

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedApril 14, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 82 N.W. 483 (Van Bergen v. Eulberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Van Bergen v. Eulberg, 82 N.W. 483, 111 Iowa 139 (iowa 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Ladd, J.

1 That the injured girl threw sticks and stones at the dog several months before she was bitten furnished it no excuse. A dog has no right to brood over its wrongs, and remember in malice. The only defense available to the dog’s master is the doing of an unlawful act, at the time of the attack, by the person injured. [140]*140Shultz v. Griffith, 103 Iowa, 150; Stuber v. Gannon, 98 Iowa, 228. See Gregory v. Woodworth, 93 Iowa, 246.

2 II. The jury, after retiring to deliberate on their verdict, inquired of the court whether they should consider “what the injuries might lead to in the future,” and were instructed, in substance, that an allowance might be made for such physical suffering, if any, as appeared from the evidence reasonably certain to occur thereafter. As the petition made no claim for damages based on future pain, and no evidence was introduced tending to prove her likely to suffer any, the giving of this instruction was error. Shultz v. Griffith, 103 Iowa, 150.—Reversed.

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

Ladd, J.

1 That the injured girl threw sticks and stones at the dog several months before she was bitten furnished it no excuse. A dog has no right to brood over its wrongs, and remember in malice. The only defense available to the dog’s master is the doing of an unlawful act, at the time of the attack, by the person injured. [140]*140Shultz v. Griffith, 103 Iowa, 150; Stuber v. Gannon, 98 Iowa, 228. See Gregory v. Woodworth, 93 Iowa, 246.

2 II. The jury, after retiring to deliberate on their verdict, inquired of the court whether they should consider “what the injuries might lead to in the future,” and were instructed, in substance, that an allowance might be made for such physical suffering, if any, as appeared from the evidence reasonably certain to occur thereafter. As the petition made no claim for damages based on future pain, and no evidence was introduced tending to prove her likely to suffer any, the giving of this instruction was error. Shultz v. Griffith, 103 Iowa, 150.—Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.W. 483, 111 Iowa 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-bergen-v-eulberg-iowa-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack