## Facts

- McCormick and Blair owned sheep that were injured in a dog attack and each sought damages from Rumbaugh, alleging the attacking dog was Rumbaugh’s.
- At trial, McCormick and Blair presented direct testimony identifying Rumbaugh’s dog as the dog involved in the attack at issue.
- Over Rumbaugh’s objection, the trial court allowed a witness for Blair to testify that he had previously seen Rumbaugh’s dog attacking Blair’s sheep and McCormick’s sheep on several earlier occasions.
- Rumbaugh testified in defense that his dog was tied up at the time of the attack in suit.
- Rumbaugh also suggested the witness could have mistaken the identity of the dog, confusing Rumbaugh’s dog with a similar dog.
- The jury returned verdicts for McCormick and Blair, and Rumbaugh appealed, challenging the admission of the prior-attack testimony.

## Issues

1. In an action for damage to sheep allegedly caused by a defendant’s dog, may the plaintiff introduce testimony that the same dog was seen attacking the plaintiffs’ sheep on prior occasions, when the defendant disputes that his dog was the attacker in the incident sued upon?

## Decision

- Yes. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the trial court did not err by admitting testimony about prior attacks by the same dog on the same owners’ sheep.
- The court concluded the evidence was relevant to the contested question of the dog’s identity and also bore on the dog’s known disposition to attack the plaintiffs’ sheep.
- The court rejected the argument that the testimony was inadmissible “reputation” or impermissible character evidence, because the witness described specific observed acts rather than general rumor or community belief.
- The court affirmed the judgments for McCormick and Blair, leaving conflicts in testimony (including Rumbaugh’s tied-up claim and his mistaken-identity theory) for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of specific prior acts may be admissible when offered to prove a disputed fact such as identity, rather than merely to show a general character trait.
- In cases involving harm by an animal, prior instances in which the same animal engaged in similar harmful conduct can be relevant to show that the animal involved in the current event was the same one observed before, especially where the defendant claims mistake as to identity.
- Testimony describing concrete, witnessed prior incidents is not the same as reputation evidence and may be received when it tends to prove a material fact in dispute.
- When evidence is admissible for a proper purpose (such as identity or knowledge of a dangerous propensity), assessing credibility and the weight of competing explanations is for the jury.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed verdicts for McCormick and Blair, holding that testimony describing prior occasions when Rumbaugh’s dog was seen attacking the same owners’ sheep was properly admitted as evidence bearing on the identity of the attacking dog and the dog’s known tendency to attack those sheep, not as inadmissible reputation or mere propensity evidence.


Rumbaugh v. McCormick, 88 N.E. 410 (1909)