 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bodoh5/13/1998
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Calumet County: DONALD A. POPPY, Judge. Affirmed.
This is a dog bite case. The twist is that this case does not come to us under the civil liability statute, Section 174.02 Stats., but is from a criminal judgment of conviction pursuant to Section 940.24, Stats. ("Injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire."). Jene R. Bodoh was charged and convicted after his two Rottweilers escaped from a fenced enclosure in his yard and attacked a fourteen-year-old boy on a bicycle while Bodoh was out of town. Bodoh argues that the statute in question was not intended to be used in dog bite cases absent some evidence that the dog was used or was intended to be used as a dangerous weapon at the time of the injury. He claims that because the evidence shows he did not train the dogs to be dangerous weapons and did not use the dogs as dangerous weapons at the time of the occurrence, the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. He also observes that the standard of negligence must be "negligence to a high degree." He argues that because it is obvious that he took more than normal measures to keep the dogs fenced in, and could not reasonably foresee the harm the dogs eventually caused, the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. Because there is evidence from which a jury could find that he used the dogs as guard dogs and, therefore, intended them to be dangerous weapons, the law imposes a duty on him to handle the dogs so as not to create a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another. The jury found him criminally negligent in that regard and we affirm.
As we wrote above, while Bodoh was out of town, his two dogs escaped from their enclosure in his yard. While they were running loose, the dogs attacked a boy. The boy testified that he was pulled off his bicycle by the dogs and that they continued to attack him as he tried to run away. The boy testified that the attack lasted nearly ten minutes, until he reached the front yard of a nearby house. The homeowner heard the boy's screams and was able to scare off one dog and get the other one to retreat.
When the police arrived, they saw one dog approximately four to five feet away from the boy. One officer who was on the scene testified that the victim initially appeared to be "a clump of clothing" on the ground. Because the dog was growling as the officers approached, it was shot and killed. The victim was transported to the hospital by ambulance. He testified that over 300 stitches were required to close all of the wounds inflicted by the attack.
When Bodoh returned home, he was contacted by the sheriff's department. He demonstrated the steps he had taken to restrain the dogs. He showed the deputy that he had used metal stakes to secure the bottom of the chain link fence and had placed boards and an electric wire around the base of the fence. He also told a deputy that the dogs had been restrained by choke collars attached to chains.
Bodoh was charged with criminal negligence under Section 940.24, Stats., and the case went to trial. After hearing extensive testimony, a jury found Bodoh guilty and he now appeals. Additional facts will be included as necessary to our Discussion.
Standard of Review
As an initial matter, the parties disagree as to the appropriate standard of review. Bodoh argues for a de novo standard of review and states that our review necessitates " he application of a statute to an undisputed set of facts" which is a question of law that this court reviews without deference to the trial court. The State contends that "this appeal involves the sufficiency of the evidenc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|