NEGLIGENCE-VIOLATION OF A DOG-LEASH ORDINANCE AS A BASIS FOR NEGLIGENCE

Authors

John J. Edman S. Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Defendant, in violation of a city ordinance requiring every owner or custodian of a dog to keep the animal on his own premises unless on a leash and under control of a competent person, allowed his dog to run loose on the street. On collision of the dog with plaintiff's motor scooter, plaintiff brought suit for injuries incurred, claiming negligence per se by defendant through violation of the ordinance. The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer. On appeal, held, reversed. The violation of the ordinance was negligence per se, since the purpose of the ordinance included the protection of people in traffic against the dangers that dogs may cause running loose. Brotemarkle v. Snyder, (Cal. App. 1950) 221 P. (2d) 992.

Recommended Citation

John J. Edman S. Ed., NEGLIGENCE-VIOLATION OF A DOG-LEASH ORDINANCE AS A BASIS FOR NEGLIGENCE, 50 Mich. L. Rev. 352 (1951).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol50/iss2/19