Deardorff v. Burger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the mere knowledge of a propensity for viciousness does not alone establish negligence
• holding that “mere awareness and ownership of a vicious animal does not per se expose one to liability for injuries inflicted absent a failure on the part of the owner to take proper precautions to preclude that viciousness from exhibiting itself.”
• applying Restatement section 590 and holding dog owner is subject to liability for dog bite only if he knows or has reason to know of dog’s vicious tendencies and failed to properly restrain the dog
• “mere awareness and ownership of a vicious animal does not per se expose one to liability for injuries inflicted absent a failure on the part of the owner to take proper precautions to preclude that viciousness from exhibiting itself.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).