Harboring Dog May Lead To Liability

If you live in Wisconsin and allow someone with a dog to live with you, you may well be liable for the dog’s bite. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held yesterday that the owner of premises was the “harborer” or “keeper”of the dog in such circumstances and that summary judgment could not be granted to the defendant and her insurer:

In June or July of 2003, Ms. Seefeldt [the defendant] agreed to let WalterWaterman, an acquaintance of her daughter, move into her home when he wasunemployed and needed a place to stay where he could keep his two dogs.  Ms. Seefeldt had three of her own dogs and alarge fenced backyard.  Mr. Watermannever paid rent; they apparently had an informal arrangement that Mr. Watermanwould help with some home repairs and housekeeping. 

Ms. Seefeldt reported that when Mr. Waterman moved in, she was toldthat the dogs, Boo and Diesel, were friendly, but she also acknowledged thatMr. Waterman told her that Boo had recently nipped a six-year-old girl on thearm and frightened her.  Ms. Seefeldtstated she was not told of any other incident in which Boo injured anyone. 

On the afternoon of October 26, 2003, as Colleen Pawlowski walkedin front of Ms. Seefeldt’s home, she heard a sound like a door opening and sawMr. Waterman’s two unleashed dogs jump off the porch and charge her.  Mr. Waterman chased the dogs and shouted tostop them but was unable to bring them under his control.  Boo jumped up on Colleen Pawlowski and triedto bite her left shoulder, tearing her coat. The dog then bit at her left thigh and finally punctured her calf,causing Ms. Pawlowski to fall to her knee before Mr. Waterman was able tocontrol both dogs.  Although her shoulderand thigh were uninjured, Ms. Pawlowski did suffer puncture wounds to her calf.

Mr. Waterman then grabbed the dogs and held them as he offered togive Colleen Pawlowski a ride home, which she declined.  Colleen Pawlowski observed that the skin wasbroken and told Mr. Waterman she would need to go to the emergency room.  She then walked to the end of the street, tothe home of a neighbor whom she knew, and asked the neighbor for a ride

At the time the attack occurred, Ms. Seefeldt was at home.  She did not see the attack and did not learnof it until a police officer came to her door to investigate later thatday.  Following the attack, Mr. Watermanapparently proceeded to the grocery store, taking his dogs with him.  When he returned to the house, Ms. Seefeldtasked him about the attack and Mr. Waterman relayed that when he had opened thedoor to leave for the grocery store the dogs had run into the street, towardColleen Pawlowski, instead of running to the car.  He told her that Boo bit Colleen Pawlowskiand that he had offered Ms. Pawlowski a ride home or to the doctor, but thatshe declined the offer.  Ms. Seefeldttold Mr. Waterman that Boo should be put to sleep, but she apparently did notseek further information about the incident. One to two weeks later, Ms. Seefeldt asked Mr. Waterman and his dogs toleave her home. 

The court concluded:

…we conclude that Ms. Seefeldt was astatutorily defined owner of the dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 at the time of the dog bite.  She was a person who harbored the dog.  Her status as a harborer of the dog was notextinguished when the dog’s legal owner took momentary control of the dog.  We also conclude that the traditional public policy factors that maypreclude tort liability do not bar recovery in the present case.

(Mike Frisch)