Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdamagesnegligenceliabilitysummary judgmentsustainedstrict liabilitycommon law

defendantdamagesnegligenceliabilitytrialsummary judgmentstrict liabilitycommon law

Related Cases

Morgan v. Marquis, 50 A.3d 1, 2012 ME 106

Facts

In January 2005, Robert and Ann Marquis adopted a dog named Beans from a rescue program, receiving no indication that he was dangerous. Beans was friendly and had completed obedience training before the incident. In October 2008, Alisa Morgan, an experienced dog owner and pet-sitter, visited the Marquises to care for their animals. During her visit, she was bitten in the face by Beans after reaching down to pet him, leading to her filing a lawsuit against the Marquises for damages.

In January 2005, Robert and Ann Marquis adopted a dog they named Beans from an out of state rescue program. Beans was part pit bull. None of the information the Marquises received about Beans from the program indicated that he was dangerous.

Issue

Did the Marquises have strict liability for the dog bite, and could Morgan recover damages under common law negligence and statutory liability?

Rule

Under common law strict liability, a dog owner is liable for harm caused by their dog only if they knew or had reason to know of the dog's dangerous propensities. Additionally, a keeper of a dog may not recover damages for injuries sustained from being bitten by that dog.

A possessor of a domestic animal that he knows or has reason to know has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class, is subject to liability for harm done by the animal to another, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent it from doing the harm.

Analysis

The court determined that the Marquises did not know Beans was likely to bite anyone absent provocation, as there were no disputed facts suggesting that they were aware of any dangerous propensities. The court also noted that the determination of whether Morgan was the dog's keeper at the time of the bite was a question of fact that could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage, allowing her negligence and statutory liability claims to proceed.

The summary judgment record does not support a finding that the Marquises knew that their dog, as opposed to a pit bull mix in general, was likely to bite a human absent provocation.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment regarding strict liability but vacated it concerning common law negligence and statutory liability, remanding the case for further proceedings.

The entry is: Judgment on Count I (statutory negligence) and Count III (common law negligence) vacated. Judgment otherwise affirmed. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Robert and Ann Marquis prevailed on the strict liability claim because the court found they did not know their dog was likely to bite anyone absent provocation.

The trial court found that the Marquises were entitled to summary judgment on this claim because the law does not recognize that pit bulls are per se abnormally dangerous to the class of domestic dogs, and '[t]here are no disputed facts suggesting that as to this dog … Defendants knew that the dog was or could be dangerous.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Boswell v. Steele, 158 Idaho 554, 348 P.3d 497

State, Dept. of Corrections v. Cowles, 151 P.3d 353

Ray v. Allergan, Inc., 863 F.Supp.2d 552, 82 Fed.R.Serv.3d 997

Marquay v. Eno, 139 N.H. 708, 662 A.2d 272, 102 Ed. Law Rep. 609

Yount v. Deibert, 282 Kan. 619, 147 P.3d 1065