In Powers v. Palacios, 794 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1990), rev’d on other grounds, 813 S.W.2d 489 (Tex.1991), the court affirmed a take nothing judgment entered by the trial court after a jury verdict, where plaintiff, Brenda Powers, sued defendant, Paul Palacios, for injuries, including the loss of a finger, sustained when a pit bull kept at defendant’s residence attacked her.
The dog, while kept at defendant’s premises, was owned by Jessie Palacios. Plaintiff was a mail carrier and was attacked by the pit bull while she was attempting to deliver mail. Plaintiff presented expert testimony that pit bulls have a savage and vicious nature and are dangerous to humans.
The plaintiff requested the following special issue be submitted to the jury: “[d]id defendant Paul Palacios allow, either by express consent or implied consent, Jesse Palacios (the dog’s owner) to have on Paul Palacios’ premises a vicious animal on February 23, 1987, the day of the attack.”
Instead of the foregoing, the trial court submitted a question which inquired whether defendant had reason to know that the dog had dangerous propensities abnormal to its class. The jury answered “No.” The court held “the trial court was correct in refusing to submit the jury question based on appellant’s theory that the dog question was a wild animal.”
This case has been cited for the proposition that the possessor or harborer of a dog may be held liable. Villarreal v. Elizondo, 831 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1992, no writ). Jessie Palacios owned the dog. Paul Palacios, the defendant, allowed Jessie to keep the dog at his premises.