Glidden v. Szybiak case brief summary
F: P: Glidden (baby, dog bitten)
D: Szybiak (dog owner)
verdicts for the P.
TC: P is found to have been of such tender years as to be incapable of being guilty of contributory negligence in her conduct toward the dog. If she was too young to be guilty of negligence, she cannot be found to have been guilty of a trespass or a tort at the time she received her injury.
P encountered a dog and played with him. She climbed on his back and pulled his ears. The dog snapped at her and bit her nose, which left her scars on close view.
D’s contention: P was engaged in the commission of a trespass at the time of her injury, therefore, barred from recovery under the statute.
Why pulling ears of dog is not harmful to dogs?
I: In circumstances where a child is bitten by dog (chattel) in the dog owner’s area, and injured, but without any harm to the dog, whether a child is liable for a trespass to the dog (chattel).
R: An individual may not maintain an action for trespass unless he has suffered actual damages as a result of trespass
A: The interest of a possessor of a chattel in its inviolability is not given legal protection by an action for nominal damages for harmless intermeddlings with the chattel unlike the similar interest of a possessor of land. Sufficient legal protection of the possessor’s interest in the mere inviolability of his chattel is afforded by his privilege to use reasonable force to
protect his possession against even harmless interference.
No claim was advanced that the dog was injured by the conduct of the P. (chattel , dog , P trespass .)
C: Judgment on the verdict in favor of P