 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodgers v. Dittman3/13/2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, James E. Kelly, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals a jury verdict in defendant's favor on plaintiff's statutory claim to recover for injuries she sustained after being chased by defendant's dog. AFFIRMED.
Quoting an unnamed poet , our highest court once said, " et dogs delight to bark and bite, For God hath made them so." Brown v. Moyer, 186 Iowa 1322, 1327, 171 N.W. 297, 299 (1919). A meter reader who claimed a dog attacked or attempted to bite her, takes issue with this pronouncement. Having lost her statutory action against the dog's owner, she now challenges the district court's (1) admission of expert testimony on the dog's characteristics and behaviors; (2) admission of evidence relating to her comparative fault; and (3) refusal to instruct the jury on the meaning of the phrase "attacking or attempting to bite." We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Ronald Dittman owned a Brittany Spaniel named Ben Joseph Shane. When Dittman went to work, he left Ben outside his home on a thirty-foot metal chain. Janice Rodgers, a water meter reader for the city of LeClaire, Iowa, approached Dittman's house to read the meter. Knowing a dog lived there, she made some noise to alert him to her presence, but saw nothing. Rodgers proceeded up a flight of stone steps toward the meter. At the top, she heard a growl, turned, and saw Ben.
Ben jumped up and charged after Rodgers with his lips curled and his teeth bared, barking all the while. Rodgers flew back down the stairs with the dog at her heels. When she got to the bottom, she continued to run but slipped and fell outside the range of Ben's chain.
Rodgers sued Dittman, alleging he was strictly liable for the acts of his dog. See Iowa Code § 351.28. The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dittman. This appeal followed the court's denial of Rodgers's new trial motion.
II. Admissibility of Dog's Characteristics and Behavior
Before trial, Rodgers unsuccessfully sought to exclude testimony of a dog training expert and of a termite inspector who had encountered Ben without incident. On appeal, she contends: (1) the dog training expert was unqualified to give an opinion on dog behavior; (2) the expert's testimony about the dog's character was irrelevant and prejudicial in this absolute liability action; and (3) the pest control inspector's testimony concerning an incident that occurred two years after Rodgers' experience should have been excluded. Our review of these issues is for abuse of discretion. Mercer v. Pittway Corp., 616 N.W.2d 602, 628 (Iowa 2000).
A. Qualifications of Dog Training Expert.
Rodgers contends defense expert James L. Stenfeldt was not qualified to testify about animal behavior because he held no degrees in that field, had not authored any articles, and had no "experience with dog behavior outside of a dog's response to training." We reject these contentions.
Iowa adheres to a liberal rule on the admission of expert testimony. IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621, 630-31 (Iowa 2000). "Although licensing carries a presumption of qualification to testify in the given field, 'learning and experience may provide the essential elements of qualification.'" Hutchison v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1994) (quoting Jones on Evidence § 14.13, at 619 (6th ed. 1972)).
Given this liberal standard, we cannot conclude the district court abused its discretion in finding Stenfeldt qualified to testify about dog behaviors. Stenfeldt had twenty-six years of dog training experience and had been exposed
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|