Once Bitten
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in a “dog bite” claim
This is a dog bite case brought by a plaintiff who was bitten by a dog while at a facility operated by an animal welfare organization. The Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of the organization, and the plaintiff appealed. Delaware’s “dog bite statute,” found at 15 Del. C. § 3053F, provides that, subject to limited exceptions, a dog owner is “liable in damages for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by such dog . . . . “Owner” is defined in 16 Del. C. § 3041F as “any person who owns, keeps, harbors, or is the custodian of a dog.” Liability under the statute is strict, i.e., not dependent on a showing that the dog owner was negligent in its handling of the dog.
The principal question we must answer in this appeal is whether an animal welfare organization is exempt from strict liability under the statute. Following the lead of two earlier Superior Court opinions, the trial court held that the statute does not apply to such organizations. To conclude otherwise would be, in the Superior Court’s judgment, to disregard the legislature’s intent when it enacted the statute, which was “to rein in irresponsible dog owners who were keeping vicious dogs as pets by eliminating the ‘one free bite rule.’” This understanding of the statute is, in our view, misguided; it bypasses the statutory text, which contains limited exceptions, none of which are relevant here, and defines the word “owner” in unambiguous terms. Given the lack of ambiguity, it was inappropriate for the Superior Court to engage in a speculative inquiry into the General Assembly’s intentions at the time of the dog bite statute’s enactment. In short, if the organization owned, kept, harbored, or was the custodian of the dog when it bit the plaintiff, it is liable in damages to him for his injuries. Hence, we reverse the Superior Court’s entry of summary judgment.
The 107 pound dog had been found roaming the Wilmington streets. “Ceelo” was “very large and scared”
Ceelo later became available for adoption and, on February 27, 2019, Laura Miles (“Miles”), the mother of BVSPCA staff member Alexandra Ford (“Ford”), adopted Ceelo. But Miles returned to the BVSPCA just five days later to surrender Ceelo because he was “chasing [her] cats.” That same day Joseph Riad (“Riad”), went to the BVSPCA with the intention of adopting a dog. While in the reception area, Riad observed Ceelo sitting with Miles and inquired about Ceelo’s availability. Ford, who was clocked in for work, took Ceelo by his leash and led Ceelo and Riad to the BVSPCA’s fenced-in play area so the two could interact. This interaction lasted approximately ten minutes during which Ceelo was kept on a leash ten to fifteen feet away from Riad. Even so, Riad testified that he was able to pet Ceelo. Riad, Ford, and Ceelo then returned to the reception area, where Riad expressed his intention to adopt Ceelo. This prompted the BVSPCA’s receptionist, Stacy Calvert, to ask Riad to fill out a “Getting to Know You” form—essentially, the BVSPCA’s adoption application. Riad left the lobby to retrieve his driver’s license from his vehicle. Miles, Ford, and Ceelo, still on the leash held by Ford, remained in the lobby. When Riad returned, Ceelo, who was still on the leash held by Ford, lunged at and bit Riad’s right hand.
Held
we reverse the Superior Court’s holding that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care applicable under these particular circumstances.
(Mike Frisch)