Engquist v. Loyas
2011 WL 4374605, 2011 Minn. LEXIS 562, 803 N.W.2d 400 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Minnesota's dog-attack statute (Minn.Stat. § 347.22), dog owners are subject to absolute liability for injuries caused by their dogs, which can only be avoided if the injured person's conduct constitutes 'provocation,' defined narrowly as voluntary actions taken with direct knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, thereby inviting or inducing the injury.
Facts:
- On July 11, 2006, nine-year-old Amber Engquist was invited by her friend Gabrielle to spend the night at the residence of Steven and Christina Loyas.
- Steven and Christina Loyas owned a black Labrador retriever named Bruno.
- During a game of hide-and-seek, Amber and Gabrielle hid in a small, dark crawl space beneath the basement steps.
- Amber had never been around Bruno before that day.
- Amber and Gabrielle called Bruno into the dark crawl space with them.
- While in the crawl space, Amber, unable to see Bruno, reached out to hug or put her arm around him.
- Bruno responded by growling at Amber, and when she moved backward, he lunged at her and bit her in the face.
- As a result of the attack, Amber sustained injuries to her eyelid and the area below her chin, requiring surgery and a series of rabies vaccinations, and resulting in some minor scarring.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondent Jill Engquist, as parent and natural guardian of Amber Engquist, commenced an action against appellants Steven and Christina Loyas in district court under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 for injuries sustained from a dog bite.
- At trial, the district court instructed the jury that 'Provoke means to engage in any act, which excites, stimulates, irritates, arouses, induces or enrages.'
- The jury determined that Amber Engquist provoked the dog, and the district court entered judgment in favor of the Loyases.
- Amber Engquist (respondent) appealed the judgment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
- The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment on the issue of liability, concluding that the jury instruction materially misstated the law, and remanded for a new trial on liability, while affirming the trial court on the issue of damages.
- The Loyases (appellants) then petitioned the Supreme Court of Minnesota for review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by giving a jury instruction that materially misstated the meaning of 'provocation' under Minn.Stat. § 347.22, where the instruction omitted the requirement that the injured party had knowledge of the danger and voluntarily exposed themselves to it?
Opinions:
Majority - DIETZEN, Justice
No, the district court's jury instruction on provocation materially misstated the law regarding a dog owner's liability under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 because it failed to explain the absolute nature of the liability and erroneously broadened the meaning of provocation by omitting the requirement of the victim's knowledge of the danger and voluntary exposure to that danger. The Supreme Court reviewed the history of the dog-attack statute and relevant case law, including Lavalle v. Kaupp, which established strict liability (later clarified as absolute liability in Seim v. Garavalia) under the statute, making owners liable irrespective of negligence or knowledge of the dog's dangerousness (scienter). This liability was equated to that of a keeper of a wild animal. The Court further noted that Seim v. Garavalia established that this absolute liability cannot be reduced by the plaintiff-victim's ordinary negligence and is only subject to the statutory requirements and the defense of provocation. Crucially, the Court emphasized its ruling in Bailey v. Morris, which held that provocation must be a 'voluntary' act that 'invites or induces the injury,' and specifically requires the plaintiff-victim's direct knowledge of the danger and voluntary exposure to that danger. The Legislature's subsequent inaction on the statute was taken as acquiescence to this interpretation. The district court's jury instruction, which defined 'provoke' as merely 'to engage in any act, which excites, stimulates, irritates, arouses, induces or enrages,' failed to incorporate these essential elements of knowledge and voluntary exposure. This broad definition allowed the jury to find provocation even for innocent acts without considering the victim's awareness of risk, thereby materially misstating the law and prejudicing the respondent. The Court also found the court of appeals' proposed instruction to be incomplete for similar reasons, as it did not fully articulate the absolute nature of liability or the required elements of provocation.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the narrow scope of the provocation defense in Minnesota's dog-attack statute, reinforcing the absolute liability standard for dog owners. By explicitly requiring a victim's knowledge of danger and voluntary exposure to that danger, the ruling makes it more challenging for dog owners to successfully invoke the provocation defense, thereby increasing their liability. The decision underscores the critical importance of precise jury instructions that accurately reflect statutory interpretations and established precedent to prevent prejudicial outcomes and ensure justice for victims of dog attacks.
