Moore v. Myers
868 A.2d 954, 161 Md. App. 349, 2005 Md. App. LEXIS 19 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Violation of an animal control ordinance constitutes evidence of negligence if it proximately causes injury, and the doctrine of negligent entrustment can apply to a 'chattel' such as a pit bull, not solely to motor vehicles. A minor can be found negligent for actions that a reasonable child of the same age, experience, and intelligence would foresee as creating an unreasonable risk of harm, even if the specific injury was not anticipated.
Facts:
- Twelve-year-old Monica Graham and her friends were walking along Columbia Park Road in Prince George’s County.
- As they approached the Myerses’ home, Monica saw 15-year-old Jaton Griffin and other boys with a pit bull in the unenclosed front yard; the dog was unleashed.
- Jaton and one of Monica’s friends had an argument, during which Jaton threatened to “sic his dog on” the girls.
- Jaton then "said something to the dog to make the dog ... aggressive," causing the dog to bark and start towards Monica.
- Frightened, Monica ran into the path of an oncoming car driven by Mia Flatricia Young.
- Monica was struck by the car and suffered two broken arms, a broken leg, and a fractured jaw.
- Michael Myers, the pit bull’s owner, regularly allowed Jaton to play with the dog unleashed in the front yard.
- Minutes before the accident, Mr. Myers saw Jaton with the unleashed pit bull in the yard as he arrived home, but he entered his house without intervening or taking control of the dog.
Procedural Posture:
- Mattie Moore, on behalf of herself and her daughter Monica, filed a negligence action in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against Mia Flatricia Young (driver), Michael Myers (dog owner), Jeanne Griffin Myers (wife), and Jaton Griffin (son).
- The complaint alleged individual negligence against Ms. Young, Jaton, and Mr. and Mrs. Myers, and negligent entrustment against the Myerses regarding the pit bull.
- At the conclusion of appellant’s case, the circuit court granted judgment in favor of Mrs. Myers and Jaton on all counts.
- At the conclusion of appellant’s case, the circuit court also granted judgment in favor of Mr. Myers on all counts, except Count I (alleging negligence based on a Prince George’s County ordinance violation).
- At the conclusion of the defense, the circuit court granted judgment in favor of Mr. Myers on Count I, submitting only the question of Ms. Young’s negligence to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Young.
- Appellant Mattie Moore noted an appeal on behalf of Monica, challenging the circuit court's dismissal of the negligence and negligent entrustment counts against appellees Michael Myers and Jaton Griffin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a dog owner's violation of a county animal control ordinance, requiring dogs to be leashed and controlled by an adult, constitute sufficient evidence of negligence to warrant submission to a jury when an unleashed dog causes a minor to flee into the path of an oncoming car? 2. Can the doctrine of negligent entrustment, typically applied to motor vehicles, be extended to a potentially dangerous chattel like a pit bull, thereby holding its owner liable for injuries caused by a minor's handling of the dog? 3. Can a minor be found negligent for an intentional act, such as prompting an unleashed pit bull to chase other children, if that act foreseeably leads to personal injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Krauser, Judge
1. Yes, the circuit court erred in granting judgment in favor of Mr. Myers on the negligence count. There was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Mr. Myers violated Prince George’s County law, which required his pit bull to be maintained within a building or secure kennel, and if removed, to be secured by a leash and controlled by an adult. Monica, as a member of the public, was within the class of persons the ordinance was designed to protect, and injuries from fleeing an unleashed and unconfined pit bull are the kind of harm the ordinance intended to prevent. Therefore, a jury could reasonably conclude that Mr. Myers’s violation was a proximate cause of Monica’s injuries, and this issue should have been submitted to the jury. The actions of Jaton or Ms. Young do not, as a matter of law, constitute a superseding intervening cause, as the danger posed by the dog was foreseeable. 2. Yes, the circuit court erred in granting judgment in favor of Mr. Myers on the negligent entrustment claim. The doctrine of negligent entrustment applies to 'chattel,' which includes dogs under Maryland law, and pit bulls are recognized as 'potentially dangerous' and 'susceptible of being used in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm.' There was sufficient evidence for a jury to infer that Mr. Myers made the pit bull available to Jaton (by permitting him to take it out unleashed or failing to intervene upon seeing them), and that Mr. Myers knew or should have known Jaton, as a minor, was likely to use the dog in a manner involving a risk of harm to others, especially with children nearby. Thus, all elements for a negligent entrustment claim were present, warranting submission to the jury. 3. Yes, the circuit court erred in granting judgment in favor of Jaton. There was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Jaton breached his duty of care to Monica. A minor is held to the standard of care of an ordinarily prudent child of the same age, experience, and intelligence. A reasonable child of Jaton's age should have known that prompting an unleashed pit bull to pursue girls created an unreasonable risk of harm. Monica’s flight into the street and subsequent injury was a foreseeable consequence of her fright, establishing both cause in fact and legal cause. The fact that Jaton’s act (urging the dog) may have been intentional does not preclude a finding of negligence if unintended consequences (Monica’s injury) resulted.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and expands liability for dog owners in Maryland. It confirms that statutory violations, such as animal control ordinances, can serve as prima facie evidence of negligence and that the doctrine of negligent entrustment is not limited to motor vehicles but extends to any 'chattel' that is 'potentially dangerous,' specifically including pit bulls. Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that foreseeability in negligence claims requires anticipating a 'general field of danger,' not necessarily the precise harm that occurs. This case sets a precedent for increased accountability for owners of potentially dangerous animals and for parents who allow minors to control such animals, reinforcing the importance of proper supervision and adherence to local safety laws.
