Homeowner Liable for Dog Bite
In Pawlowski v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105
(2007AP2651), the issue before the Wisconsin Supreme Court was
whether the defendant homeowner was statutorily liable as a
person who either "harbors" or "keeps" a dog even though the
actual owner of the dog was the person who had control of the
dog at the time of the bite. Just before the bite, the owner
allowed his two dogs to go out the front door of the house. The
circuit court had found that the defendant homeowner was not
liable. The court of appeals reversed. Wisconsin's high court
affirmed the decision.
The homeowner, Seefeldt, allowed her daughter's friend to move
into the house with his two dogs, Boo and Diesel. Seefeldt had
three dogs of her own and a large fenced in backyard. Seefeldt
was told that Boo and Diesel were friendly. However, Seefeldt
had also been informed that Boo had recently nipped a six year
old girl on the arm.
The plaintiff, Pawlowski, was walking on the sidewalk in front
of Seefeldt's home. The dogs' owner had opened the door to
leave and Boo and Diesel charged Pawlowski. The dogs' owner
shouted for the dogs to stop, but they did not listen. Boo
jumped on Pawlowski and bit her. Two weeks later, Seefeldt
asked the dogs' owner to leave. He was not located and was not
named as a defendant.
Pursuant to §174.02 an "owner" of a dog is liable for the
injuries caused by the dog. The definition of "owner" is
defined as "any person who owns, harbors, or keeps a dog." Wis.
Stat. §172.001(5). The statute does not provide a definition for
either "harbor" or "keep."
The supreme court adopted the definition of keep and harbor from
Patterman v. Patterman, 173 Wis. 2d 143, 96 N.w.2d 613 (Ct. App.
1992). That case said keeping generally requires "exercising
some measure of care, custody, or control over the dog."
"Harboring a dog means something more than a meal of mercy to a
stray dog or the casual presence of a dog on someone's premises.
Harboring means to afford lodging, to shelter or to give refuge
to a dog.". The supreme court concluded that Seefeldt harbored
Boo because she sheltered, maintained, and protected the dog on
at her residence.
Seefeldt argued that she should not be liable because she did
not have dominion or control over the dogs at the time of the
bite since their actual owner let them out. The court found
that "moment to moment" control was not required.
The court also found that public policy did not preclude
liability. "It is not unreasonable that the homeowner take
precautions to ensure that the dog is leashed or restrained in
some manner. . ." Thus, homeowners must not only be mindful of
their dogs, but also of any dogs they allow to be kept by others
on their premises, even when the actual owner is the person last
in control of the dogs.
