The Price of a Bulldog Bite
A Seattle millhand secures a $4,000 judgment after a vicious guard dog attack on the tide flats, despite the owner's attempt to deny responsibility.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A jury in the superior court awarded J. E. Grissom $4,000 damages against W. D. Hofius for injuries inflicted on his left leg by a vicious bulldog, alleged to have been kept on the defendant's premises on the tide flats. Hofius, who claims that he is not the owner of the dog, gave notice of appeal. Grissom is a millhand who claimed that the dog attacked him as he was passing in front of the premises of W. D. Hofius Co., on Connecticut street. The plaintiff confessed that he was a victim of the popular notion that a person bitten by a dog was forever afterward in imminent danger of developing hydrophobia, and this belief preyed on his mind. Considerable testimony was introduced to prove that the dog was known to be vicious and had menaced other pedestrians. The defendant pleaded that he was not the owner of the dog, but that it was kept by the firm of W. D. Hofius Co. as a watchdog to prevent petty thieves. The case was tried before Judge Albertson.
“He also confessed that he was a victim of the popular notion that a person bitten by a dog was forever afterward in imminent danger of developing hydrophobia.”
Premises liability and the use of 'watchdogs' in industrial areas remain points of legal contention. This case reflects the early 20th-century anxiety surrounding rabies and the legal burden of business owners to secure their property.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.