The case involved a five-year-old plaintiff who was bitten by the defendant's large dog while visiting the defendant's home as a guest. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court reduced the award by remittitur, and the defendant appealed, arguing that no prima facie case had been proven and that the jury instructions were erroneous. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence established the dog's known vicious propensities and that an owner who keeps such an animal is liable for resulting injuries regardless of the degree of restraint attempted.

torts & liability

This case involved a tripartite lease transaction in which P.I.C. Leasing purchased and leased two-way radio equipment to Roy A. Scheperle Construction Co. after the construction company had negotiated directly with supplier Harold Hawken. Scheperle refused further lease payments, claiming the equipment was defective and unfit for use, and P.I.C. sued to recover the full amount due under the lease while also repossessing the equipment. Scheperle asserted affirmative defenses, filed a counterclaim against P.I.C. for return of its deposit and alleged roof damage during repossession, and brought a third-party claim against Hawken. The trial court entered findings and judgment for P.I.C. on its petition and against Scheperle on the third-party petition. On appeal, the court held that the judgment was final despite not expressly addressing the counterclaim, as one element had been resolved in the main judgment and the roof-damage claim had been abandoned, and it affirmed the judgment for P.I.C. after deeming unresolved factual issues in accordance with the trial result.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over coverage under a student accident insurance policy issued to a school district, where a junior high student broke his leg while playing football in the parking area during halftime of a school game. The insurer denied the claim, arguing the activity was not a supervised extracurricular activity under the policy terms, and the trial court set aside jury awards for penalties and attorney fees on vexatious refusal grounds. The appellate court affirmed the denial of vexatious refusal damages but reversed the award of medical expense damages because the plaintiff's verdict-directing instruction improperly asked the jury to reach a legal conclusion rather than finding specific facts about whether the injury occurred within the policy's coverage. The case was remanded for a new trial limited to the issue of liability under the policy terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure