Dunnings v. Castro

Majority - O’Connor, Justice

Yes, a genuine issue of material fact regarding a dog owner's negligent handling does preclude summary judgment on a negligence claim, even without evidence that the dog had abnormally dangerous propensities, especially when the injured party was an invitee. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment on the strict liability claim, reasoning that no summary judgment evidence suggested Elmo had dangerous propensities abnormal to its class, nor did Castro have knowledge of such. Castro stated Elmo had never acted aggressively or attacked anyone, and the expert's affidavit did not create a fact issue on abnormal propensities, only on general aggressive behavior when tied. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the negligence claim. It clarified that, unlike strict liability, a negligence action against an animal owner does not require proof of the animal's vicious nature. Citing Marshall v. Ranne and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 518, the court emphasized that owners are required to know the normal habits and tendencies of their domestic animals and exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm, even from ordinarily gentle animals, under particular circumstances. Dunnings, as a mailman, was an invitee, to whom Castro owed a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The court found that an expert's affidavit, stating a prudent owner would know tethering a large dog in the front yard could lead to aggressive behavior when confronted by a stranger, combined with Castro's admission that her dog might scare someone, created a material fact issue on whether Castro's handling of Elmo was negligent. This issue needed to be decided by a jury, thus rendering summary judgment improper for the negligence claim.