Plaintiff: Bussell

Case Brief

Plaintiff: Bussell

Defendant: Scott (1), Tinsley (2), and Humane Society (3)

Facts: Plaintiff was bitten by a dog (Samson). Dog was acquired by defendant 1, then dog bit neighbor’s child. Defendant 2 contacted Defendant 3 to place dog there. Defendant 3 accepted dog and placed it with another owner. Dog bit child of the new owner’s neighbor.

Procedural History: Plaintiff brought action against Def 1-3. Def. 1 & 2 moved for summary judgment. Court granted summary judgment in favor of def. 1 & 2. Plaintiff appealed.

The mother claimed the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the former owner because he owed a duty to the public to protect it from the dog, and there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the transfer of the dog's ownership; and in granting summary judgment in favor of a woman who looked after the dog regarding whether she acted as an agent of the former owner and whether she made misrepresentations of fact as to the dog's nature.

Issue: The issue was whether Def 1 owed a duty to the public because the dog has bitten a person before (vicious propensities) and whether Def 2 acted as agent of Def 1.

Judgement: Affirmed

Rule: In order to establish a submissible case: (1) Dog must have been vicious or have dangerous prospensities. (2) the owner has knowledge of such propensities.

Supporting Rule Language

Reasoning: One bite does not confirm, that dog is dangerous. Not more Information. D2 was not agent, since she never owned it and had no knowledge of propensities.

Scott owed no duty to the public regarding samon’s future actions