Van Bergen v. Eulberg
Nellie Van Bergen, a minor, by Mary Van Bergen, her next friend v. John Eulberg
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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 Shultz 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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“A dog has no right to brood over its wrongs, and remember in malice.”)
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.