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
- 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.
- 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.