Daniel Eastman et al. v. James Duckett, Jr. dba Diamond Management Group aka James C. Duckett et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter was heard on the Hearing In Damages docket on June 5, 2013.   The defendant was defaulted for failure to plead and he did not attend the hearing in damages.   Both Daniel Eastman and Amy Eastman, who were represented by counsel, testified at the Hearing in Damages.

As to the First Count, on or about September 4, 2009 the plaintiff, Daniel Eastman loaned $25,000 to James Duckett, Jr., d/b/a Diamond Management Group, a/k/a James Duckett, a/k/a/ T.J. Duckett.   There was no note or other documentation setting forth the terms of repayment, however the understanding between the parties was that it would be paid on demand.   Approximately one month after September 4, 2009 the plaintiff made an oral demand for repayment, without success.   In July 2012, Mr. Eastman made written demand, but the loan has never been repaid and remains unpaid to this date.   Duckett has filed a Trade Name Certificate with the town of Somers (exhibit 2) and the plaintiff seeks judgment against both Duckett and his business.

In addition to the allegation of an unpaid loan, the plaintiffs seek money damages in counts four and five for damages sustained by encounters with several large dogs owned by Duckett.   The plaintiffs, in addition to the claim for damages seek an injunction enjoining the defendant from allowing his dogs from roaming onto the plaintiff's property.

Probably the most egregious incident occurred on February 18, 2011, when a boxer dog owned by Duckett (the Ducketts' own approximately six dogs) attacked and attempted to break through a door to get at the plaintiffs' smaller dog.   The defendants' dog, a boxer, had previously tried to get at the plaintiffs' smaller dog.   Amy Eastman, who had given birth to their sixth child about nine days earlier grabbed a can of dog mace planning on spraying the boxer.   Two great danes, also owned by the defendants joined the fray and Amy, in trying to spray the three large dogs of the defendant inhaled some of the mace spray while trying to protect her own smaller dog and was herself injured in the melee.

The plaintiffs' dog required veterinary care at a cost of $154.00 (Exhibit 3).

Amy Eastman sustained neck and shoulder injuries requiring medical treatment which included physical therapy and chiropractic treatment ($670) and medication ($324.00).

The plaintiffs also installed a chain link fence along their property line for protection and claim damages of $38,000 for 3,800 feet @ $10.00 (the defendants' dog, a boxer had previously tried to get at the plaintiffs' smaller dog) per foot.   The Court declines to award damages for this item.   There was testimony that the fence does not totally block the dogs from accessing the plaintiffs' home, although they now have to take a more circuitous route to do so.   It is not reasonably foreseeable that a dog owner should be required to install or pay for the installation of a $38,000 fence in an effort to keep animals away from a neighboring residence.

Judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff with damages as follows:

Veterinary Care $ 154.00

Medical Care (including chiropractic) 670.00

Medication 324.00

Pain and Suffering 6,000.00

Unpaid loan from Plaintiff 25,000.00

Total:  $32,198.00

The plaintiffs may submit a Bill of Costs.

Further, the defendant is enjoined from allowing his dogs to trespass and/or roam on the plaintiffs' property.

Klaczak, J.T.R.

Klaczak, Lawrence C., J.T.R.