Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

SALLY A. ALLEN v. JESSICA COX ET AL. (SC 17763)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Zarella and Schaller, Js. Argued October 17, 2007--officially released February 26, 2008

William F. Gallagher, with whom, on the brief, were Garrett M. Moore and Joseph D. Foti, for the appellant (plaintiff). Frank H. Santoro, with whom were Laura E. Waltman and, on the brief, Julia B. Morris, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion

SCHALLER, J. The plaintiff, Sally A. Allen, brought this action against the defendants, Jessica Cox and Daniel Cox,1 alleging that she was injured by the defendants' cat after the defendants negligently allowed the cat to roam free. The trial court rendered summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants had notice of their cat's vicious or mischievous propensities giving rise to a duty of care to prevent the cat from injuring the plaintiff. The plaintiff then brought this appeal from the trial court's judgment.2 We reverse the judgment of the trial court. The record reveals the following relevant facts, none of which are in dispute.3 The plaintiff resides at 14 Lois Street in Bristol and the defendants reside approximately three blocks away. Both the plaintiff and the defendants are cat owners. On a number of occasions during August and September, 2004, the plaintiff saw the defendants' cat in her backyard and on her porch. In her deposition testimony, the plaintiff described the defendants' cat as dirty, scruffy looking, ragged and in apparent pain. Cox testified at her deposition that her cat had not been neutered. Linda DelFino, a neighbor of both the plaintiff's and the defendants', submitted an affidavit in which she stated that Cox had told her that she ``could not control [her cat] because he would `destroy' her kitchen curtains and house to get outside [and] she would let him out and leave the problem cat for everyone else to deal with.'' DelFino also stated that Cox had told her that Cox's neighbors kept their cats inside to avoid fights with the defendants' cat and that, if the defendants' cat started a fight with one of DelFino's cats, DelFino should stomp her feet. DelFino testified at her deposition that the defendants' cat was covered with scars from fights and that she could not ``even give you a figure on how many times I broke up fights, because [the defendants' cat] fought with . . . any cat that . . . came in the yard . . . .'' At some point in September, 2004, the plaintiff, DelFino and Cox were talking outside the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff's cat also was outside at that time. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that the defendants' cat was in the area and, ``when [he] saw [Cox], he came over. And [the two cats] swatted, hissed at each other and then my cat took off . . . .'' Cox testified that she also had observed the fight between the two cats. On the morning of March 20, 2005, the plaintiff let her cat out of her house at 6:30 a.m. About one hour later, she heard two cats fighting. When she opened her front door, she saw her cat fighting with the defendants' cat. The plaintiff yelled at her cat, who immediately broke away. The plaintiff then quickly opened her front door, picked up her cat, threw him inside the

house and closed the door. Almost immediately thereafter, the defendants' cat leapt to the plaintiff's right forearm and hung onto it. Screaming in pain, the plaintiff tried to remove the cat from her right arm with her left hand. The cat then bit that hand. It is undisputed that this was the first time that the defendants' cat had attacked a person. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendants alleging that she had been injured as the result of the defendants' negligence in allowing their cat to roam free. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether they owed the plaintiff a duty of care because they did not know that their cat was of a vicious or mischievous disposition and hence liable to attack people. In support of this proposition, the defendants relied on our decision in Pallman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 117 Conn. 667, 668, 167 A. 733 (1933) (``[t]he defendant in any event would not be liable unless it knew or should have known that the cat was of a vicious or mischievous disposition and hence liable to attack people''). The defendants argued that a duty of care arises only when the defendant knew or had reason to know of the animal's vicious propensities and, even then, the vicious propensity had to be of the same kind that gave rise to the plaintiff's claim. See W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5th Ed. 1984)

Download Allen v. Cox.pdf

Connecticut Law