From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McBride v. Wasik

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 29, 1986
179 Ga. App. 244 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

In McBride, although the dog had never bitten anyone, evidence was presented that he had been seen charging and leaping "upon small children while snarling and growling, knocking the children to the ground on numerous occasions."

Summary of this case from Wade v. American National Ins. Co.

Opinion

72415.

DECIDED MAY 29, 1986.

Action for damages. Cherokee Superior Court. Before Judge Gault.

Robert E. Richardson, for appellant.

Earl W. Gunn, W. Alan Jordan, for appellees.


The appellant sued the appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Wasik, to recover for dog-bite injuries inflicted upon him by their German shepherd dog. The complaint was grounded on the appellees' alleged negligence and carelessness in failing to control the dog, despite knowledge of its alleged vicious propensities. This appeal is from the grant of the appellees' motion for summary judgment.

In deposition testimony and in their responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions propounded by the appellant, the appellees denied knowledge of any prior instance in which their dog had bitten anyone. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the appellant submitted the affidavit of a neighbor, Mrs. Volnary, who maintained that Mr. Wasik had once commanded the dog to attack her by pointing at her and yelling, "Kill the bitch." Mrs. Volnary stated that the dog had responded to this command by running towards her but that Wasik had called the animal off before it reached her. She further averred that Wasik had once told her the dog was a trained attack dog. The appellant also submitted the affidavit of Mr. Volnary's 14-year-old son, who averred that he had personally seen the dog "charge and leap upon small children while snarling and growling, knocking the children to the ground on numerous occasions." There was, however, no evidence that the dog had ever before actually bitten anyone.

The appellant was bitten in his own yard, after he grabbed the dog to prevent what appeared to him to be an attack on his wife. The appellant testified that earlier that same day he had overheard Mr. Wasik, with whom he was evidently not on the best of terms, announce that "he hoped that dog got out and went over there and killed that s.o.b., talking about me." Held:

1. The appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appellant's failure to file his brief within 20 days of the docketing of the appeal is denied. See Court of Appeals Rule 14.

2. The appellees' potential liability in this case is governed by OCGA § 51-2-7, which, as it existed at the time of the incident in question, provided in its entirety as follows: "A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act shall be liable in damages to the person so injured."

"`Concerning this statutory provision, this court has repeatedly held that "[p]roof that the owner of a dog either knew or should have known to the dog's propensity to do the particular act which caused injury to the complaining party is indispensable to recovery against the owner. [Cit.] . . . [T]he owner of a dog may not be found liable for an unforeseen and unforeseeable act of the dog simply because the dog was not under the owner's direct control at the time the act took place." [Cit.]' Smith v. Culver, 172 Ga. App. 183 ( 322 S.E.2d 294) (1984)." Brown v. Pierce, 176 Ga. App. 787 ( 338 S.E.2d 39) (1985).

Although there was no evidence that the appellees' dog had ever before bitten anyone, we believe the evidence of Mr. Wasik's alleged announcement, on the day of the attack, that "he hoped that dog got out and went over there and killed" the appellant is sufficient to create a material issue of fact as to whether he knew the dog had a vicious propensity to attack people if set free. Because it is this alleged propensity which resulted in the appellant's injuries, we therefore hold that the trial court erred in granting the appellees' motion for summary judgment.

Judgment reversed. Birdsong, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

DECIDED MAY 29, 1986.


Summaries of

McBride v. Wasik

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 29, 1986
179 Ga. App. 244 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)

In McBride, although the dog had never bitten anyone, evidence was presented that he had been seen charging and leaping "upon small children while snarling and growling, knocking the children to the ground on numerous occasions."

Summary of this case from Wade v. American National Ins. Co.

In McBride we concluded there was evidence that the dog owner had knowledge of his dog's propensity to bite a human being even though there was no evidence that the dog had previously bitten anyone.

Summary of this case from Supan v. Griffin
Case details for

McBride v. Wasik

Case Details

Full title:McBRIDE v. WASIK et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: May 29, 1986

Citations

179 Ga. App. 244 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)
345 S.E.2d 921

Citing Cases

Supan v. Griffin

raises genuine issues of material fact as to Supan's prior knowledge of his dogs' tendency to attack humans.…

Wade v. American National Ins. Co.

In fact, the record shows that although Champ was kept to guard equipment in the fenced area where he was…