## Facts

- Nancy L. Seefeldt owned a home in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and allowed Walter Waterman to live there rent-free for about three months with his two dogs, including Boo.
- Waterman agreed to be responsible for the dogs’ care, including feeding and exercising them.
- Seefeldt set house rules for the dogs, including prohibiting them from being on furniture and limiting when they could be outside unleashed (unleashed permitted only in the fenced backyard, not the unfenced front yard).
- While Seefeldt was not home, Waterman opened the front door and both dogs ran out unleashed toward Colleen Pawlowski, who was walking on the public sidewalk.
- Boo bit Pawlowski’s left thigh and punctured her calf, causing her to fall and sustain injuries.
- Pawlowski sued Seefeldt under Wis. Stat. § 174.02, asserting Seefeldt was a statutory “owner” because she “harbored” or “kept” Boo; Seefeldt and her homeowner’s insurer, American Family, denied that status.

## Issues

1. Whether a homeowner who permits another person and that person’s dog to live in the home, and sets rules governing the dog, is a statutory “owner” as a “keeper” or “harborer” under Wis. Stat. § 174.02.
2. Whether statutory “keeper” status (and strict liability) requires the homeowner’s physical presence or immediate control over the dog at the moment of injury.
3. Whether judicial public policy bars liability even if the homeowner qualifies as a statutory “owner.”

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment for Seefeldt and American Family.
- The court held Seefeldt was a “keeper” of Boo and remained a keeper at the time of Pawlowski’s injury, making her a statutory “owner” under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 and strictly liable for damages caused by the dog.
- The court rejected the argument that Seefeldt’s keeper status depended on who opened the door or who had immediate control at the time of the dog’s escape.
- The court held judicial public policy did not preclude liability under these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Wis. Stat. § 174.02 imposes strict liability on a dog’s statutory “owner,” defined to include a person who “owns, harbors or keeps a dog.”
- A “keeper” is one who exercises some measure of care, custody, or control over the dog; a “harborer” is one who shelters or gives refuge to the dog.
- Statutory owner status does not require physical presence, direct restraint, or immediate control at the moment the dog causes injury; the inquiry centers on the overall relationship to the dog and the degree of dominion or control.
- A homeowner who allows a dog to reside in the home for a significant period, imposes and enforces rules governing the dog, and has the authority to exclude the dog may qualify as a statutory “keeper” and be strictly liable.
- Judicial public policy limits on liability are applied sparingly and do not bar recovery where liability aligns with the legislature’s strict-liability choice in § 174.02.

## Conclusion

Because Seefeldt allowed Boo to live in her home, exercised rule-setting authority over the dog’s presence and conduct, and had power to remove the dog, she was a statutory “keeper” under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 and strictly liable for Pawlowski’s injuries even though she was absent when the dog escaped and bit Pawlowski.


Pawlowski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 322 Wis. 2d 21, 777 N.W.2d 67 (Wis. 2009)