Doerfler v. Redding
205 A.2d 502, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 694, 1964 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 214 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a strict liability dog bite statute, a plaintiff's act of touching a dog after being warned to stay away does not constitute a 'trespass or other tort' or 'teasing, tormenting or abusing' the dog that would bar recovery, as such conduct is not inherently injurious or naturally calculated to provoke a dog.
Facts:
- The defendant owned a miniature poodle.
- On April 10, 1962, the defendant was on her front lawn with her dog on a leash.
- The plaintiff, an eleven-year-old boy, was on the defendant's property to deliver a newspaper.
- As the plaintiff approached the defendant, she verbally warned him, 'Keep away from the dog.'
- Shortly after the warning, the plaintiff put his hand on the back of the dog's head.
- The dog then bit the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, an eleven-year-old boy, brought a statutory action against the defendant dog owner in a Connecticut trial court for damages from a dog bite.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiff, concluding that he was not committing a trespass or other tort, nor was he teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, arguing the court's conclusions were not supported by the facts or law.
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 an eleven-year-old boy's act of placing his hand on a dog's head, after being warned by the owner to keep away, constitute either a 'trespass or other tort' or 'teasing, tormenting or abusing' the dog so as to bar his recovery for a dog bite under General Statutes § 22-357?
Opinions:
Majority - Kinmonth, J.
No, the plaintiff's act of placing his hand on the dog's head, despite a warning, does not bar his recovery under the statute. The statutory exception for 'trespass or other tort' is intended to apply only to injurious acts that would naturally provoke a dog's defensive instincts, not merely touching the dog. While the plaintiff's act may have been contributorily negligent, contributory negligence is not a defense to this statutory action. Similarly, the exception for 'teasing, tormenting or abusing' applies only to conduct that would naturally antagonize a dog and is improper. Petting a dog is not an act that naturally irritates it to the point of attack, and the owner's warning does not transform a non-antagonizing act into one that qualifies as teasing, tormenting, or abusing under the statute.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly construes the statutory exceptions to Connecticut's strict liability dog bite law, reinforcing the high standard of responsibility placed on dog owners. It clarifies that a plaintiff's disobedience or minor imprudence, which might constitute contributory negligence in other tort cases, is insufficient to shield an owner from liability. The case establishes that the plaintiff's conduct must be evaluated based on its likely effect on a dog—specifically, whether it is an injurious act or one that would naturally provoke an attack. This holding limits the defenses available to dog owners and protects plaintiffs who act without malicious or provocative intent, even if they act unwisely.
