May v. Holzknecht Ex Rel. Holzknecht
320 S.W.3d 123, 2010 WL 3191766, 2010 Ky. App. LEXIS 142 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Kentucky Revised Statutes 258.235(4), while not imposing strict liability in all circumstances, the keeper of a dog is responsible for damages it causes to a person, and liability cannot be avoided by claims of victim's fault, third-party fault, or fortuitous circumstances when the victim is a child legally incapable of comparative negligence.
Facts:
- Sherri May and John David May operated a home-based childcare center where they also kept a dog.
- Days before Meghan Holzknecht's attack, the Mays' dog had nipped and scratched another child cared for in their home, and Sherri May also admitted the dog would sometimes growl at men.
- The Mays had informed Meghan's mother, Sarah Holzknecht, that the dog would be kept outside the home.
- On the day of the attack, Sherri May allowed the dog to be among the children in the home, sharing a blanket with Meghan, while she left the room to make a sandwich.
- Shortly after leaving the room, Sherri May heard an unusual growling followed by screaming, and another child reported the dog had attacked Meghan.
- Meghan Holzknecht, who was under two years of age at the time, suffered severe lacerations and puncture wounds to her face and mouth, necessitating two surgeries, and continues to exhibit lasting emotional and physical effects, including scarring, fear, and difficulty sleeping.
- John David May, although not present during the attack and not actively involved in the childcare business, co-owned the home and regularly fed, watered, and otherwise cared for the dog.
Procedural Posture:
- Sarah Holzknecht, as mother and next friend of Meghan Holzknecht, filed a complaint against Sherri May, John David May, and their homeowners' insurance carrier in Hardin Circuit Court, alleging negligence and liability under KRS 258.235(4).
- The Mays answered, denying liability and suggesting Meghan may have provoked the dog.
- Holzknecht filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the Mays' liability.
- The Hardin Circuit Court granted partial summary judgment in Holzknecht's favor, concluding that Meghan (under two years old) was incapable of negligence, no third-party was at fault, and no fortuitous circumstance absolved the Mays of liability.
- A jury trial was subsequently held to determine damages, which awarded $25,889.84 for medical expenses and $50,000.00 for past and future pain and suffering.
- The Mays filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which the trial court denied.
- Sherri May and John David May appealed the partial summary judgment and the subsequent trial order and judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
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 a dog's keeper liable under Kentucky Revised Statutes 258.235(4) for damages when the victim is a child under two years of age, legally incapable of comparative negligence, thereby precluding defenses of victim's fault, third-party fault, or fortuitous circumstance; and can a co-owner of the premises who cares for the dog be held liable as a "keeper" under such circumstances; and is an award for future pain and suffering valid if supported by evidence of continued pain but not future medical expenses?
Opinions:
Majority - COMBS, Judge
Yes, a dog's keepers are liable under Kentucky Revised Statutes 258.235(4) for damages when the victim is a child legally incapable of comparative negligence, as such circumstances preclude the application of exculpatory defenses; and a co-owner of the premises who cares for the dog is considered a "keeper" liable under the statute even if not present during the attack; and an award for future pain and suffering is valid if supported by evidence of continued pain but not future medical expenses. The court affirmed the trial court's partial summary judgment, holding that while KRS 258.235(4) does not impose strict liability in all circumstances, the traditional exculpatory factors recognized in cases like Carmical v. Bullock (victim's fault, third-party fault, fortuitous circumstance) do not apply here. Meghan, being under two years old, was legally incapable of comparative negligence (Lehman v. Patterson). The Mays knew or reasonably expected the dog to have direct access to the children, thereby violating their statutory duty to prevent injury. Evidence of the dog's temperament was irrelevant in this context. The court rejected John David May's argument for a directed verdict, stating that his liability stemmed from his status as a "keeper" under KRS 258.235(4), not his presence or direct involvement in the childcare. As a homeowner who fed and cared for the dog, he had a statutory duty to prevent the attack and could have ensured the dog was kept outside. Regarding damages, the court affirmed the award for future pain and suffering. It clarified that while future medical expenses can strongly indicate future pain, their absence does not preclude such an award. The test is whether there is evidence to indicate that the plaintiff's pain and suffering are likely to continue (American States Ins. Co. v. Audubon Country Club). Given Meghan's severe injuries, two surgeries, and ongoing physical and emotional trauma, the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's award (Miller v. Swift).
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Kentucky's dog-bite statute, KRS 258.235(4), particularly regarding the defenses available to dog keepers. It reinforces that when a victim is a very young child, legally incapable of comparative negligence, the keeper's liability is essentially absolute, as the common exculpatory defenses are rendered moot. The ruling also broadens the understanding of who qualifies as a "keeper," extending liability beyond direct owners or those actively managing the dog during an incident to any individual who contributes to the dog's care and maintains the premises where it is kept, potentially impacting co-habitants or family members. This decision ensures greater protection for vulnerable victims and places a higher burden on those who choose to keep dogs in environments with children.
