Bradacs v. Jiacobone
625 N.W.2d 108, 244 Mich. App. 263 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Michigan's dog-bite statute, an unintentional act does not constitute provocation if the dog's aggressive response is out of proportion to the victim's action. Provocation is assessed based on the reasonableness of the dog's reaction, not the victim's intent.
Facts:
- Stephanie Bradacs, then twelve years old, was playing with defendants' daughter, Julie Jiacobone, in the Jiacobones' backyard.
- Julie Jiacobone brought food outside for the family's Labrador retriever, Bear, and placed it on the ground near the back door.
- While Bear was eating, Bradacs stood approximately six inches away from him, juggling a football.
- Bradacs accidentally dropped the football; it landed on the ground but not near Bear or his food.
- As Bradacs bent down to retrieve the football, Bear bit her right leg.
- Prior to this incident, Bear had never acted aggressively toward Bradacs.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephanie Bradacs filed a complaint against James and Barbara Jiacobone in a Michigan trial court, alleging strict liability under the state's dog-bite statute.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury that provocation under the statute could include unintentional acts, over Bradacs' objection.
- The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action, finding in favor of the Jiacobones.
- Bradacs filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The trial court denied Bradacs' post-trial motion.
- Bradacs, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Michigan Court of Appeals, with the Jiacobones as the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's unintentional act of accidentally dropping a football and bending to retrieve it near a dog that is eating constitute 'provocation' sufficient to relieve the dog's owner of liability under the Michigan dog-bite statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelly, J.
No. The plaintiff's act of dropping a football and bending to retrieve it does not constitute provocation under the dog-bite statute. The court determined that even if an unintentional act could theoretically constitute provocation, the dog's reaction in this case was out of proportion to the plaintiff's action. Adopting a proportionality standard from other jurisdictions, the court reasoned that provocation must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable, average dog. Here, Bradacs made no sudden or threatening gestures toward the dog, and her actions were not directed at it. Bear's aggressive response was not a reasonable reaction to the stimulus, so the act was not legally sufficient provocation to relieve the defendants of their strict liability under the statute.
Concurring - Sawyer, J.
No. The trial court's decision should be reversed, but on simpler grounds. The concurring opinion argues that the Legislature never intended for purely unintentional acts, such as accidentally dropping an object or tripping and falling on a dog, to constitute provocation under the statute. Because Bradacs' act was purely unintentional, it cannot, as a matter of law, be considered provocation, making the majority's proportionality analysis unnecessary.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the provocation defense under Michigan's strict liability dog-bite statute. By importing a proportionality standard from other jurisdictions, the court shifts the analytical focus from the victim's state of mind to the reasonableness of the animal's reaction. This makes it more difficult for dog owners to escape liability by claiming that a minor, accidental, or inadvertent action by the victim constituted provocation. The ruling establishes a precedent that protects victims from being blamed for bites that result from a dog's disproportionate or unusually aggressive response to a benign stimulus.
