Curran v. Burkhardt

5 Citing cases

  1. Koller v. Duggan

    346 Mass. 270 (Mass. 1963)   Cited 19 times

    Canavan v. George, 292 Mass. 245, 249-250. Curran v. Burkhardt, 310 Mass. 466, 467. Since the plaintiff sustained the burden of proving joint ownership, it was unnecessary to demonstrate that the defendants were also joint keepers.

  2. Malchanoff v. Truehart

    354 Mass. 118 (Mass. 1968)   Cited 21 times
    In Malchanoff v. Truehart, 354 Mass. at 121, the court pointed out that "strictly speaking the question [whether the witness could testify as to events which occurred when she was slightly more than three years old] was really not one of competency," but rather a question whether the witness has the requisite knowledge.

    The statute imposes strict liability on the owner or keeper of a dog which shall "do any damage to . . . the body or property of any person," and proof that the owner was negligent, or otherwise at fault, or knew that the dog had any dangerous propensities is not essential to recovery. Canavan v. George, 292 Mass. 245, 247. Curran v. Burkhardt, 310 Mass. 466. But the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that she was not "teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog." Sullivan v. Ward, 304 Mass. 614.

  3. Carey v. Planning Board of Revere

    335 Mass. 740 (Mass. 1957)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that the mortgagee of abutting property was "aggrieved" since violation of subdivision control law may depreciate the value of that property

    We think that if the notice were given before the filing of the bill it would comply with the statute, which requires notice not of the filing or taking of the appeal, but only "of such appeal." Compare Arlington Trust Co. v. Le Vine, 289 Mass. 585; Checkoway v. Cashman Brothers Co. 305 Mass. 470; Curran v. Burkhardt, 310 Mass. 466. Jurisdiction depends on the fact of the notice, not on whether it was pleaded. If given within the time limited, but not set out in the pleadings in a particular case, either because given after the bill was filed or through inadvertence, manifestly an appropriate occasion would be presented for allowance of an amendment of the bill to cause it to state all the jurisdictional requirements of the appeal.

  4. Burgess v. Uzarins

    1999 Mass. App. Div. 81 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    Thus proof of ownership alone has been held sufficient to permit a finding for the plaintiff. See, e.g., Koller v. Duggan, 346 Mass. 270, 272 (1963); Curran v. Burkhardt, 310 Mass. 466, 467-468 (1941). Conversely, evidence that the defendant was the keeper of the dog, without more, has been deemed a proper basis for a determination of liability.

  5. Sullivan v. Morse

    1985 Mass. App. Div. 185 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    . . " See Rossi v. DelDuca, 344 Mass. 66, 68-69 (1962); Curran v. Burkhardt, 310 Mass. 466, 466-467 (1941); Canavan v. George, 292 Mass. 245, 247 (1935). The mere ownership of premises upon which a dog is kept does not alone render the property owner liable as a keeper of the dog, even where the dog continues upon the premises with the knowledge, acquiescence or even permission of the property owner.