¶1The plaintiff went upon the defendant’s premises to cut grass which had been given him by defendant’s manager for the cutting. Almost as soon as he entered the yard, without any reason, he was savagely attacked by a large dog belonging to the defendant, and bitten severely. The damages were not excessive. It was proper to prove the daily earnings of the plaintiff. Such loss was in-*306valved in the ordinary and necessary result of an injury, and was not special or peculiar damages which needed being pleaded. Jutte v. Hughes, 67 N. Y. 267. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
21 N.Y.S. 305
Hubert v. Bedell
Decided December 12, 1892
New York Supreme Court · decided 1892-12-12
Action by Joseph Hubert against Sarah E. Bedell for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed. ■ Plaintiff was invited into defendant’s yard by the manager of her premises to look at some grass he was to have for the cutting. He went through the front gate, and walked to and past the house into the back yard, where the grass was, and where defendant’s manager was waiting for him.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1948
1 state decisions
Relies on Jutte v. . Hughes
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1892-12-12
View the full empirical analysis of this case →