## Facts

- Cindy Nielsen arrived at Jessica Marie Gehrts’s home after dog obedience school with her eight-month-old St. Bernard, Wilbur, secured in the bed of a pickup by a harness attached to a restraining device.
- Gehrts asked Nielsen for permission to pet Wilbur; Nielsen allowed her to do so.
- As Gehrts reached up to pet Wilbur, the dog bit her in the face, injuring her nose and forehead and requiring extensive medical treatment.
- Gehrts sued Nielsen (the dog’s owner) and Jon Batteen, asserting strict liability and negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on both claims; Gehrts appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a dog owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by a domesticated animal without proof the owner knew or should have known the animal had abnormally dangerous propensities.
2. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact that Nielsen acted negligently under the reasonable-person and foreseeability standards.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on both strict liability and negligence.
- On strict liability, the court held Gehrts failed to produce evidence that Nielsen knew or should have known Wilbur had abnormally dangerous propensities.
- On negligence, the court held the record contained no evidence that Nielsen breached the reasonable standard of care or that the bite was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- For domesticated animals, strict liability for injury requires proof the owner knew or had reason to know of the animal’s abnormally dangerous propensities.
- Prior incidents or behavior suggesting aggression can support an inference of the owner’s knowledge; absent such evidence, strict liability does not attach.
- Negligence in an animal-injury case requires evidence of a duty and breach measured by what an ordinary prudent person would foresee and do in similar circumstances.
- Expert opinion asserting a risk is not sufficient, by itself, to defeat summary judgment where the record does not support foreseeability or a deviation from reasonable care.

## Conclusion

Because Gehrts offered no evidence that Nielsen had notice of any abnormally dangerous propensities in Wilbur and failed to show that a prudent owner would have foreseen and prevented the bite in the circumstances presented, summary judgment for defendants on both strict liability and negligence was affirmed.


Gehrts v. Batteen, 2001 S.D. 10, 620 N.W.2d 775 (S.D. 2001)