Carlson v. Friday
2005 Minn. App. LEXIS 424, 2005 WL 949030, 694 N.W.2d 828 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Minnesota's dog-bite statute, a person who voluntarily accepts temporary responsibility for the management, control, or care of a dog in a manner similar to a primary owner is considered a "keeper" and cannot sue the primary legal owner for injuries sustained while "keeping" the dog.
Facts:
- Edward Friday owned two German Shepherd/Golden Retriever mixed-breed dogs, Lady and Lucky.
- In January 2002, Friday first employed Hot Dogs Groomery to bathe his dogs and cut their nails.
- In March 2002, Jaclyn Marie Carlson began working as an independent contractor, grooming dogs at Hot Dogs.
- Carlson's dog-grooming training included learning to keep dogs from running loose, how to muzzle aggressive dogs, and how to contact or transport a dog to a veterinarian if needed.
- In June 2002, Friday returned to Hot Dogs with Lady and Lucky to have them groomed by Carlson.
- Carlson kenneled Friday’s dogs while she finished grooming another dog, then led Lucky from his kennel to the bathing area.
- Carlson bathed Lucky and placed him on a grooming cart to dry him with a towel.
- As Carlson began pulling the cart toward the drying area, Lucky suddenly bit her on the face, causing injuries requiring extensive stitching and leaving two visible scars.
Procedural Posture:
- Jaclyn Marie Carlson (appellant) sued Edward Friday (respondent) in district court for damages due to a dog bite, claiming strict liability under Minn.Stat. § 347.22.
- The district court granted Edward Friday's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Carlson's complaint with prejudice.
- Carlson appealed the district court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is Jaclyn Marie Carlson considered the "keeper" of Edward Friday's dog, Lucky, for purposes of secondary ownership under Minn.Stat. § 347.22, thereby prohibiting her from bringing a strict liability action against Edward Friday, the primary legal owner, for injuries suffered from a dog bite?
Opinions:
Majority - Gordon W. Shumaker
Yes, Jaclyn Marie Carlson was the "keeper" of Edward Friday's dog, Lucky, under Minn.Stat. § 347.22, which prevents her from suing Friday for her injuries. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, interpreting Minn.Stat. § 347.22, the dog-bite statute. The statute holds an "owner" (including one "harboring" or "keeping" a dog) liable for unprovoked attacks. However, precedent, specifically Tschida v. Berdusco (1990), established that a secondary owner (harboring or keeping) cannot maintain an action against another owner, including the primary legal owner, for injuries sustained while the dog is in their possession. The court synthesized existing case law (Verrett v. Silver (1976) and Kent v. Block (2001)) to define "keeping" for secondary ownership. It held that "keeping" involves: (1) a voluntary acceptance, (2) of temporary responsibility, (3) as it relates to the management, control, or care of the dog, (4) exercised in a manner generally similar to that of the dog’s primary legal owner. Carlson, as an independent contractor, voluntarily accepted temporary responsibility for Friday's dogs, managed and controlled Lucky by kenneling him, moving him to the bathing area, securing him for bathing and drying, and was prepared to muzzle him or seek vet assistance—all actions similar to a primary owner. Therefore, Carlson qualified as a "keeper," and the statute prohibited her claim against Friday.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the definition of "keeper" under Minnesota's dog-bite statute, Minn.Stat. § 347.22, particularly for professionals who provide temporary care for dogs. It solidifies the principle that a secondary owner (keeper/harborer) cannot sue the primary legal owner for injuries sustained while the dog is in their care, even under a strict liability statute. This ruling limits the scope of potential plaintiffs under the dog-bite statute, particularly in commercial grooming or boarding contexts, shifting the risk of injury to those who voluntarily assume temporary control and care of an animal.
