Same Streets
← All stories

The Trial of the $12,000 Yellow Dog

A vicious canine’s habit of biting pedestrians leads to a massive civil lawsuit that leaves a judge weighing the legal definition of a trespasser.

A yellow dog of great biting proclivities is the pivot around which revolves a $12,000 damage case now on trial before a jury in Judge Albertson's department of the superior court. The dog has not appeared in court, but that may be because the canine has not yet had its innings. The dog has been so fully described, however, that the jury ought to recognize him should they meet him in the street. J. C. Grissom seeks to recover $12,000 from N. V. Hofius for the amount of damages incurred because he claims that the dog chewed his knee on the defendant's premises Sunday, July 19, and that he will be crippled for life. The defense avers that Grissom was a trespasser on the premises of the Hofius-Hofius company near the waterfront when he encountered the dog, and was therefore guilty of contributory negligence. The canine offender is said to be a bulldog-mongrel mix. It is said by his enemies that his legs are short, but that he is endowed with a vast, cavernous, crocodile mouth, well furnished with long teeth of much lacerative and prehensile power. Numerous witnesses testified that the dog made it his business or pastime last summer to surround the leg of a pedestrian with these rows of teeth, and to hold on with reprehensible vigor. One witness testified that on the evening of July 12, the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne, this orange-colored dog attacked an entire family, although they were not known to be Irish. After the plaintiff's witnesses had told everything they could think of against the dog, the attorneys for the defendant moved for a non-suit. Judge Albertson reserved his decision upon the motion.

“The dog has not appeared in court, but that may be because the canine has not yet had its innings.”

— Printed in The Evening Statesman (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1903
Then · 1903123 years apartNow · 2026

While $12,000 was a fortune in 1903, the debate over liability for an attack on private property—and the characterization of a 'trespasser' versus a 'visitor'—remains a cornerstone of modern premises liability law.

The original page

The Evening Statesman (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1903-10-29. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Evening Statesman (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, OCT 29, 1903, Page 7
Text
Cleaned up from the page — spelling and layout repaired — not a word-for-word transcription. The page itself is above, for exact wording.
Rights
Public domain
Place
46.20552, -118.51743 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗