## Facts

- Elaine Glidden, age four, encountered a dog (“Toby”) on a porch near a neighborhood store and played with him.
- During play, Elaine climbed on the dog’s back and pulled his ears; the dog snapped and bit her nose, causing injuries requiring medical treatment.
- Toby was owned by Jane Szybiak, an adult daughter living with her parents.
- Louis Szybiak (Jane’s father) allowed the dog to be kept in the household and to roam freely in the home, but evidence indicated Jane provided the dog’s care.
- The actions were brought under a New Hampshire dog-bite statute imposing liability on an owner or possessor, subject to a bar if the injured person was committing “a trespass or other tort” at the time of injury.
- No claim was made that Elaine injured or impaired the dog.

## Issues

1. Whether Elaine’s conduct toward the dog constituted a trespass to chattels (or other tort) that barred recovery under the dog-bite statute.
2. Whether Louis, as head of the household who permitted the dog to live and roam in the home, was in “possession” of the dog within the meaning of the statute.

## Decision

- The court held Elaine’s conduct did not amount to trespass to chattels and therefore did not trigger the statutory bar for “trespass or other tort.”
- The court held Louis was not a statutory possessor of the dog because mere household permission, without care, custody, or control, was insufficient.
- Judgment was entered on the verdict against Jane (the owner), and judgment was entered for Louis.

## Legal Principles

- Trespass to chattels requires actual impairment of the chattel, deprivation of use for a substantial time, or other legally cognizable harm tied to the interference; trivial, harmless intermeddling is insufficient.
- Nominal damages are not available for trespass to chattels absent the required harm or substantial interference.
- Under a dog-bite statute imposing liability on an owner or possessor, “possession” implies meaningful care, custody, or control, not mere toleration of the dog’s presence in a household.

## Conclusion

The court allowed statutory recovery against the dog’s owner because the child’s harmless play was not a trespass to chattels, but it rejected liability for a household head who only permitted the dog to reside in the home without exercising the control associated with statutory possession.


Glidden v. Szybiak, 95 N.H. 318, 63 A.2d 233 (N.H. 1949)