From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
Wright v. Brown
Connecticut Supreme Court
356 A.2d 176 (1975)
Facts
Mary Wright (plaintiff) was attacked and injured by a dog owned by William Brown (defendant). The dog had attacked another person less than two weeks earlier and had been placed into a quarantine pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 22-358, which requires a dog that attacks or bites a person to be placed into quarantine for a minimum of 14 days. However, Wright claimed that the dog had been released prior to the end of the required 14-day period and that Wright had been attacked and injured as a result. Wright brought a complaint against Brown, the dog warden (defendant), and the Town of Plainville (town) (defendant), seeking damages. In her complaint, Wright claimed that the dog warden and the town had violated § 22-358 and thus acted negligently. The dog warden and the town demurred, arguing that Wright was not within the class of people that § 22-358 was intended to protect. The trial court determined that § 22-358 was intended to protect only persons alleged to have been bitten by diseased dogs, and that Wright was not within this class of persons because she had not claimed she was bitten by a diseased dog. Wright appealed the decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bogdanski, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 553,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
