Such an action will not be disturbed unless that discretion has been clearly abused. Gomes v. Zocco, 155 Conn. 566, 569, 236 A.2d 90; Zullo v. Zullo, 138 Conn. 712, 715, 89 A.2d 216: Slabinski v. Dix, 138 Conn. 625, 628, 88 A.2d 115. We conclude that in the instant case there was a clear abuse of discretion.

From the text of the statute, it is cleat that a dog need not bite or attack someone in order for its owner to be held liable. Cases have held that actionable injury caused by a dog may occur when the dog tugs on a leash and injures the leash-holder, Funk v. Bannon, 148 Conn. 557, 172 A.2d 894 (1961), when it merely chases, but does not touch, the plaintiff who is injured trying to get away, Gomes v. Zocco, 155 Conn. 566, 236 A.2d 90 (1967), and when after giving "a little kick" at a dog, a plaintiff turns to walk away, falls backward, and breaks his wrist. Malone v. Steinberg, 138 Conn. 718, 89 A.2d 213 (1952).

Damages done by a dog have long been held to include those resulting from the act of protecting oneself from attack. See Gomes v. Zocco, 155 Conn. 566, 236 A.2d 90 (1967); Malone v. Steinberg, 138 Conn. 718, 89 A.2d 213 (1952); Granniss v. Weber, 107 Conn. 622, 141 A. 877 (1928). "[Section 22-357] creates a cause of action that did not exist at common law.