Maupin v. Tankersley
540 S.W.3d 357 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 258.235(4) imposes strict liability on a dog owner for damages caused by their dog, meaning liability is established upon proof of ownership and causation, but a victim's comparative negligence may be considered to mitigate the amount of damages awarded.
Facts:
- On September 12, 2009, Latasha Maupin was squirrel hunting with her boyfriend, James Carpenter, on Carpenter's family's heavily wooded property in Jackson County.
- Maupin decided to go home early and started walking back to Carpenter's truck, apparently crossing a 42-acre tract owned by Roland Tankersley.
- Maupin was walking on an old, overgrown path that her family had previously used to access her aunt's property with Tankersley's consent.
- Near where the pathway joined Highway 1955, a pack of four or five dogs attacked Maupin, knocking her down, biting her, and causing substantial injury.
- A motorcyclist traveling on the nearby highway saw Maupin's predicament and rescued her from the attacking dogs.
- Maupin sustained severe wounds, endured pain and suffering, and incurred substantial medical bills from the dog attack.
Procedural Posture:
- Latasha Maupin sued Roland Tankersley in Jackson Circuit Court for injuries sustained from a dog attack, relying on KRS 258.235(4).
- After the conclusion of evidence, the Jackson Circuit Court instructed the jury to find for Maupin only if Tankersley owned the dogs and had reason to believe Maupin would be in the vicinity or failed to exercise ordinary care to control his dogs.
- Maupin objected to these instructions and tendered her own, which sought to impose liability solely on Tankersley's ownership of the attacking dogs.
- The jury found that Tankersley owned the dogs but also determined that he had no reason to believe Maupin would be near his dogs and had not failed to exercise ordinary care, thus finding him not liable.
- Maupin filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and/or a Motion for New Trial based upon improper jury instructions, which the Jackson Circuit Court denied.
- Maupin appealed the Jackson Circuit Court's decision to the Court of Appeals.
- On September 16, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Jackson Circuit Court, holding that the jury instructions properly stated the law of dog owner's liability.
- Maupin, as the appellant, then sought discretionary review from the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
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 Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 258.235(4) impose strict liability upon the owner of a dog that attacks and injures a person, and if so, can the victim's comparative fault be considered in determining damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cunningham
Yes, KRS 258.235(4) imposes strict liability on a dog owner for injuries caused by their dog, and the victim's comparative fault may be considered in determining damages. The court found that the language of KRS 258.235(4), stating an owner "shall be responsible for that damage," uses mandatory language that establishes strict liability, echoing the legislative intent seen in predecessor statutes (e.g., Ky. Stat. § 68a, former KRS 258.275(1)). This interpretation is consistent with prior rulings like Benningfield ex rel Benningfield v. Zinsmeister. The court clarified that while strict liability means a dog owner is responsible regardless of their knowledge of the dog's propensities or exercise of ordinary care, the victim's comparative negligence, as established by Hilen v. Hays and mandated by KRS 411.182(2), can be applied to reduce the damages awarded. Therefore, the trial court's jury instructions, which required Maupin to prove Tankersley had reason to believe she would be near the dogs or failed to exercise ordinary care, were erroneous because they introduced elements of negligence into the liability phase, undermining the strict liability mandate. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial with proper instructions reflecting strict liability followed by a comparative fault analysis for damages.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice VanMeter
Yes, future jury instructions in dog bite cases should incorporate principles of comparative fault, but no, the verdict in this particular case should not be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Justice VanMeter agreed with the majority that comparative fault principles should apply to damages in dog bite cases. However, he dissented from the reversal and remand, arguing that Maupin failed to properly preserve her objection to the jury instructions at the trial court level. Maupin's tendered instructions only advocated for strict liability without including any comparative negligence principles. Under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 51(3), a party cannot assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless they fairly and adequately presented their position to the trial court. Because Maupin's tendered instructions were either incomplete or erroneous in not presenting the comparative fault argument, she should not be heard to complain on appeal, and the trial court's verdict should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarification on dog owner liability in Kentucky, firmly establishing strict liability under KRS 258.235(4) while simultaneously integrating comparative fault principles into the damages assessment. This approach eliminates the 'one free bite' common law rule and ensures that dog owners are held responsible for damages caused by their animals, irrespective of negligence. However, it also introduces a necessary balance, preventing victims from receiving full compensation if their own actions contributed to the incident. This ruling will likely simplify the liability determination in dog bite cases, shifting the primary judicial inquiry to the apportionment of damages based on the fault of all parties involved, ensuring fairness for both owners and victims.
