Rossi v. DelDuca

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Torts

TortsDog-bite liabilityTrespass privilegeConsequential damagesstrict liabilitydog owner liabilityG. L. c. 140 § 155trespass exception

Facts

Patricia Rossi, an eight-year-old girl, was walking home from school when a German Weimaraner on Oak Street frightened her and another child, causing them to run down Cambridge Street, a dead-end street. To continue home, they went around a garage and shed and across an open field over which the defendant had full control for his business purposes; the Weimaraner followed them, and in that field the defendant's two black Great Danes attacked Patricia and bit her. The defendant owned the Great Danes, kept them in that field to protect business equipment, and had full control of the field by arrangement with his father. Patricia's father incurred medical expenses on her behalf.

Issue

First, whether Patricia was barred from recovery under G. L. c. 140, § 155 because she was trespassing when the defendant's dogs attacked her. Second, whether Patricia's father could recover consequential damages, specifically medical expenses, under the same statute.

Rule

G. L. c. 140, § 155 imposes strict liability on a dog owner or keeper for damage caused by the dog unless, at the time of the injury, the injured person was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog; the plaintiff must plead and prove the absence of those disqualifying acts. But a person who enters another's land because it is or reasonably appears necessary to prevent serious harm is privileged to enter and is not a trespasser for purposes of the statute. The statute also permits recovery of consequential damages, including a parent's medical expenses resulting from injury to a child.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Worcester, Lena Ortiz was walking past a fenced storage yard when a dog owned by Nolan Pierce pushed through a loose gate and bit her on the sidewalk. Lena had never interacted with the dog before and there is no evidence she was on the property, committing any tort, or provoking the dog.

If Lena sues Nolan under the Massachusetts dog-liability statute discussed in the opinion, which is the strongest conclusion?

Explanation. The majority states that the Massachusetts dog-liability statute imposes strict liability on an owner or keeper for damage caused by a dog, without requiring proof of negligence, fault, or knowledge that the dog had dangerous propensities. The only relevant statutory defenses discussed are that the injured person was trespassing, committing another tort, or teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog. Thus, the strongest conclusion is that Nolan may be held liable without proof that he knew the dog was dangerous, unless one of those statutory bars applies. (Derived from Rossi v. DelDuca (n.d.).)