## Facts

- Deputy Todd Caron, employed by the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office, owned a police dog, Sleuber.
- While Caron was on vacation, Sleuber was kenneled at a veterinary clinic.
- Jennifer Marie Harris, a veterinary assistant at the clinic, was attacked and severely injured by Sleuber while the dog was boarded there.
- It was undisputed Harris did not provoke the attack.
- Harris received workers’ compensation benefits from the clinic and then sued the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office under South Carolina’s dog-bite statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110, and for common-law negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110 permits a statutory claim against a dog’s owner when, at the time of the attack, another person had the dog in his care or keeping.
2. Whether negligence-based concepts (including control or custody at the time of the attack) limit an owner’s statutory liability under § 47-3-110.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for the Sheriff’s Office and remanded.
- The court held § 47-3-110 allows a plaintiff to sue the dog’s owner or another person having the dog in his care or keeping, giving “or” its ordinary disjunctive meaning.
- The court rejected the view that owner liability under § 47-3-110 depends on negligence principles or on the owner’s control at the time of the attack.
- The court declined to create a judicial exception barring claims by kennel or veterinary workers.
- The court treated Harris’s workers’ compensation recovery from the clinic as not barring her statutory claim against the Sheriff’s Office as a third party.

## Legal Principles

- Under S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110, statutory liability may be pursued against the dog’s owner or a non-owner who had the dog in his care or keeping at the time of the attack.
- The statute imposes strict liability when its elements are met; negligence, foreseeability, and contemporaneous control are not required elements of the statutory claim against the owner.
- The statute’s provocation defense is a limited statutory bar; absent provocation, the statute applies according to its terms.
- Courts may not rewrite § 47-3-110 by reading “or” conjunctively or by adding categorical exclusions not found in the text.

## Conclusion

The court held that South Carolina’s dog-bite statute permits a statutory claim against a dog’s owner even when the dog was in a third party’s care or keeping at the time of an unprovoked attack, reversing summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings.


Harris v. Anderson Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 673 S.E.2d 423 (S.C. 2009)