Docherty v. Sadler

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a ten-year-old boy injured by a dog while caring for it was not protected by state’s strict liability statute
• concluding that the plaintiff was barred from recovery where he agreed to take care of his neighbor’s dog for five days
• concluding that the plaintiff was barred from recovery where he agreed to take care of his neighbor’s dog for five days
• refusing to apply assumption of risk analysis to minor plaintiff who was taking care of defendant’s dog at the time of his injury, since plaintiff was clearly an “owner” of dog under Animal Control Act
• refusing to apply assumption of risk analysis to minor plaintiff who was taking care of defendant's dog at the time of his injury, since plaintiff was clearly an \owner\ of dog under Animal Control Act
• minor pet sitter fell within the statutory definition of “owner” and could not recover for injuries received from a dog that was under his care

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).