Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Granniss v. Webergreen2 sentences2019Section 22-357 provides in relevant part: "If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper ... shall be liable for such damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog...." "Specifically ... § 22-357 imposes strict liability on the owner or keeper of a dog for harm caused by the dog, with limited exceptions. [The] principal purpose and effect [of § 22-357] was to abrogate the comm 2019Section 22-357 provides in relevant part: "If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper ... shall be liable for such damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog...." "Specifically ... § 22-357 imposes strict liability on the owner or keeper of a dog for harm caused by the dog, with limited exceptions. [The] principal purpose and effect [of § 22-357] was to abrogate the comm | 2 | 8 |
Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Churchgreen2 sentences2008It ‘extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law.’ ” [Emphasis added.]); see also Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152 , 160 n.10, 943 A.2d 391 (2008) (same); Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn. App. 252, 266 , 815 A.2d 263 (2003) (same); *578 Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 253 , 679 A.2d 411 (1996) (O’Connell, J., dissenting) (“no indication in the present case that the plaintiff had such knowledge, i.e., scienter, of the dangerous propensities of the defendant’s dog” [emphasis added]), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319 , 696 A.2d 320 (1997); see generall 2008It ‘extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law.’ ” [Emphasis added.]); see also Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152 , 160 n.10, 943 A.2d 391 (2008) (same); Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn. App. 252, 266 , 815 A.2d 263 (2003) (same); *578 Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 253 , 679 A.2d 411 (1996) (O’Connell, J., dissenting) (“no indication in the present case that the plaintiff had such knowledge, i.e., scienter, of the dangerous propensities of the defendant’s dog” [emphasis added]), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319 , 696 A.2d 320 (1997); see generall | 1 | 1 |
Woolf v. Chalkergreen1 sentence1928It “extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law, but no good reason has been urged, and we know of none, why the intention of the legislature should no,t . . . have been what the language imports; and there is very clear evidence, derived from the state of the common law as it then stood . . . and the general policy of the State indicated by its legislation relative to dogs, that such was their intention.” Woolf v. Chalker (1862) 31 Conn. 121, 127, 132 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stokes v. Lyddy
green
2 sentences2008It ‘extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law.’ ” [Emphasis added.]); see also Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152 , 160 n.10, 943 A.2d 391 (2008) (same); Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn. App. 252, 266 , 815 A.2d 263 (2003) (same); *578 Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 253 , 679 A.2d 411 (1996) (O’Connell, J., dissenting) (“no indication in the present case that the plaintiff had such knowledge, i.e., scienter, of the dangerous propensities of the defendant’s dog” [emphasis added]), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319 , 696 A.2d 320 (1997); see generall 2008It ‘extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law.’ ” [Emphasis added.]); see also Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152 , 160 n.10, 943 A.2d 391 (2008) (same); Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn. App. 252, 266 , 815 A.2d 263 (2003) (same); *578 Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 253 , 679 A.2d 411 (1996) (O’Connell, J., dissenting) (“no indication in the present case that the plaintiff had such knowledge, i.e., scienter, of the dangerous propensities of the defendant’s dog” [emphasis added]), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319 , 696 A.2d 320 (1997); see generall | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Murphy v. Buonato
green
2 sentences2008It ‘extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law.’ ” [Emphasis added.]); see also Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152 , 160 n.10, 943 A.2d 391 (2008) (same); Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn. App. 252, 266 , 815 A.2d 263 (2003) (same); *578 Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 253 , 679 A.2d 411 (1996) (O’Connell, J., dissenting) (“no indication in the present case that the plaintiff had such knowledge, i.e., scienter, of the dangerous propensities of the defendant’s dog” [emphasis added]), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319 , 696 A.2d 320 (1997); see generall 2008It ‘extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law.’ ” [Emphasis added.]); see also Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152 , 160 n.10, 943 A.2d 391 (2008) (same); Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn. App. 252, 266 , 815 A.2d 263 (2003) (same); *578 Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 253 , 679 A.2d 411 (1996) (O’Connell, J., dissenting) (“no indication in the present case that the plaintiff had such knowledge, i.e., scienter, of the dangerous propensities of the defendant’s dog” [emphasis added]), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319 , 696 A.2d 320 (1997); see generall | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Murphy v. Buonato
green
2 sentences2008It ‘extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law.’ ” [Emphasis added.]); see also Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152 , 160 n.10, 943 A.2d 391 (2008) (same); Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn. App. 252, 266 , 815 A.2d 263 (2003) (same); *578 Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 253 , 679 A.2d 411 (1996) (O’Connell, J., dissenting) (“no indication in the present case that the plaintiff had such knowledge, i.e., scienter, of the dangerous propensities of the defendant’s dog” [emphasis added]), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319 , 696 A.2d 320 (1997); see generall 2008It ‘extends the liability of the owner of a dog beyond that existing at common law.’ ” [Emphasis added.]); see also Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152 , 160 n.10, 943 A.2d 391 (2008) (same); Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn. App. 252, 266 , 815 A.2d 263 (2003) (same); *578 Murphy v. Buonato, 42 Conn. App. 239, 253 , 679 A.2d 411 (1996) (O’Connell, J., dissenting) (“no indication in the present case that the plaintiff had such knowledge, i.e., scienter, of the dangerous propensities of the defendant’s dog” [emphasis added]), aff'd, 241 Conn. 319 , 696 A.2d 320 (1997); see generall | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Maccarone v. Hawley
green
1 sentence1994It “ ‘abrogate[s] the common-law doctrine of scienter as applied to damage by dogs to persons and property, so that liability of the owner or keeper became no longer dependent upon his knowledge of the dog’s ferocity or mischievous propensity ....’” Id., quoting Granniss v. Weber, 107 Conn. 622, 625 , 141 A. 877 (1928). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ingeneri v. Kluza
neutral
1 sentence1964“The statute is drastic, and its purport is that a person who owns a dog does so at his peril.” Ingeneri v. Kluza, 129 Conn. 208, 210 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Weingartner v. Bielak
green
1 sentence1964In Granniss v. Weber, 107 Conn. 622, 625 , the Supreme Court, reviewing the history of our statutory provisions and commenting on the duties imposed by them and by the common law, said: “Their principal purpose and effect was to abrogate the common-law doctrine of scienter as applied to damage by dogs to persons and property, so that liability of the owner or keeper became no longer dependent upon his knowledge of the dog’s ferocity or mischievous propensity; literally construed the statute would impose an obligation on him to pay for any and all damage the dog may do of its own volition.” See | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.