## Facts

- A two-year-old child, Daniel Reinhard, was bitten in the face by “Anchor,” a German Shepherd owned by Yoshitaka and Kazuyo Okata.
- The attack occurred in Anchorage, Alaska, on June 4, 1993; Daniel’s five-year-old sister witnessed it.
- It was disputed whether Daniel’s mother was present at the moment of the attack or arrived shortly after.
- On the day of the incident, the Okatas’ 17-year-old son, Yoshihide Okata, arrived home, removed Anchor from a fenced backyard into the driveway area, and left the dog unsupervised while he slept.
- Plaintiffs asserted Anchor had a history of prior biting incidents; defendants contended those incidents reflected normal canine behavior, supported by a defense expert opinion.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence, strict liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of society/companionship, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The case reached federal court on diversity jurisdiction and came before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability issues.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on strict liability by establishing, as a matter of law, that the dog had dangerous propensities and the owners knew or should have known of them.
2. Whether Yoshihide Okata was negligent as a matter of law in failing to restrain and supervise the dog.
3. Whether violation of a municipal dog-restraint ordinance established negligence per se.
4. Whether the parents (Yoshitaka and Kazuyo Okata) were negligent as a matter of law for their own conduct in managing the dog and complying with restraint requirements.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion in part and denied it in part.
- Strict liability: summary judgment denied because genuine disputes existed about whether Anchor had a dangerous propensity and whether the owners had notice.
- Yoshihide Okata: summary judgment granted; he was negligent as a matter of law for removing the dog from a secure enclosure and leaving it unrestrained and unsupervised.
- Negligence per se: summary judgment granted against Yoshihide based on violation of the Anchorage dog-restraint ordinance.
- Parents’ negligence: summary judgment denied due to factual disputes about their knowledge, precautions, and responsibility for the circumstances leading to the bite.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alaska law, strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal requires proof that the animal had a dangerous propensity and that the owner knew or should have known of that propensity.
- Prior biting incidents do not automatically establish dangerous propensity as a matter of law; the nature and interpretation of prior episodes may present fact questions.
- A handler’s violation of a dog-restraint ordinance can constitute negligence per se when the injured person is within the protected class and the injury is the type the ordinance seeks to prevent.
- Ordinary negligence may be established as a matter of law where undisputed conduct shows a breach of reasonable care that proximately causes the injury.
- Claims against other defendants may remain for trial when the record permits competing inferences on breach, notice, or reasonableness of precautions.

## Conclusion

The court refused to impose strict liability on summary judgment because the dog’s alleged dangerous propensity and the owners’ notice were disputed, but it held the teenage handler liable for negligence and negligence per se for violating the municipal restraint requirement by removing the dog from secure confinement and leaving it unrestrained and unsupervised.


Sinclair v. Okata, 874 F. Supp. 1051 (D. Alaska 1994)