Pawlowski v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
322 Wis. 2d 21, 2009 WI 105, 777 N.W.2d 67 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who provides lodging and shelter to another's dog in their home for several months qualifies as one who "harbors" the dog, making them a statutory "owner" strictly liable for injuries caused by the dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.02. This status is not terminated by the legal owner's momentary control of the dog at the time of the injury.
Facts:
- In mid-2003, Nancy L. Seefeldt allowed Walter Waterman to move into her home with his two dogs, Boo and Diesel.
- Waterman lived in Seefeldt's home rent-free for approximately four months in exchange for helping with home repairs.
- Seefeldt was aware that Waterman's dog, Boo, had previously nipped a child.
- On October 26, 2003, Waterman opened the front door of Seefeldt's home, and his two unleashed dogs ran out and charged Colleen Pawlowski, who was walking on the sidewalk.
- Waterman chased after the dogs but could not control them before Boo bit Pawlowski on the calf, causing puncture wounds.
- Seefeldt was inside her home at the time of the attack and did not witness it.
- About one to two weeks after the incident, Seefeldt asked Waterman and his dogs to move out of her home.
Procedural Posture:
- Colleen and Thomas Pawlowski filed a lawsuit against Nancy L. Seefeldt and her insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, in the Circuit Court for Winnebago County (trial court).
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Seefeldt, finding she was not a statutory 'keeper' of the dog and that public policy barred liability.
- The Pawlowskis, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that Seefeldt was a keeper and strictly liable under the statute.
- Seefeldt, as appellant, sought review of the court of appeals' decision from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin (highest court).
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 homeowner who allows another person's dog to live in her home for several months a statutory 'owner' who 'harbors' the dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.02, making her strictly liable for injuries caused by the dog, even if the dog's legal owner has momentary physical control at the time of the incident?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson
Yes, a homeowner who allows another's dog to live in her home for an extended period is a statutory owner who harbors the dog and is strictly liable for its actions. The court distinguished between 'keeping' a dog, which involves care, custody, or control, and 'harboring' a dog, which means affording it lodging, shelter, or refuge. Seefeldt harbored the dog Boo by allowing it to live in her home for several months. This status as a harborer, and therefore a statutory owner, does not fluctuate on a minute-to-minute basis depending on who has immediate control. Citing Koetting v. Conroy, the court affirmed that a statutory owner's liability is not extinguished simply because the legal owner is present and in control at the moment of injury. Unlike cases where a keeper affirmatively relinquished control (Janssen v. Voss) or landlord-tenant cases involving separate residences, Seefeldt had not terminated her relationship as a harborer. Finally, the court concluded that public policy factors do not preclude liability, as doing so would undermine the legislature's intent to protect innocent victims and place responsibility on those in a position to control the dog's environment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the breadth of strict liability under Wisconsin's dog bite statute, establishing that liability for 'harboring' an animal is not easily shed. It serves as a significant warning to homeowners and others that providing long-term residence to another person's dog transforms them into a statutory 'owner' with full strict liability. The ruling decouples liability from moment-to-moment physical control, focusing instead on the more stable relationship of providing shelter. This precedent broadens the pool of potential defendants in dog bite cases and reinforces the legislative policy of placing the risk of injury on anyone who provides a home for a dog, not just its legal owner.
