Demers v. Rosa

925 A.2d 1165 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Bannon called the Middlebury police department and requested assistance with a roaming dog on her property. The weather was a wintry mix of snow and sleet. Two police officers, Cronin, and P, drove separately to Bannon's residence and parked their patrol cars in the driveway. Bannon told the officers that her call was prompted by concern for the safety of the dog in light of the inclement weather. She also stated that she contacted the police department only after the dog warden informed her that he was unable to come to her residence. Cronin recognized the dog because the dog had been found roaming once before. Cronin knew the identity and address of the dog's owner. Cronin took the dog from Bannon and, while holding it by its collar, led it down the driveway to his patrol car. He put the dog in the backseat and then got into the car himself. P followed Cronin and once Cronin had gotten into his car, stopped to talk with him. While P was standing next to Cronin's car that he lost his footing and slipped on the ice and snow, falling on his back. P was injured and could not move. P eventually filed a complaint against D for negligence in letting the dog roam. The court found that it was reasonably foreseeable that negligently allowing a dog to roam could precipitate complaints from local residents, that it was reasonably foreseeable that a police officer could be injured during the course of responding to such a complaint because police officers had responded previously when the defendant's dogs were found roaming. The court found that D's negligence in allowing his dogs to roam was a substantial factor. P got $48,381.76. D appealed.