Pepper v. Triplet
864 So. 2d 181, 2004 WL 97101 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Civil Code article 2321, an owner is strictly liable for damages caused by their dog only if the plaintiff proves the dog presented an unreasonable risk of harm. This requirement is subsumed within the statutory language that the owner is liable for injuries they "could have prevented."
Facts:
- Dustin Pepper and Thomas Triplet were long-time next-door neighbors.
- Triplet owned a 13-year-old Labrador/Huskie mix named Bandit, which he kept in a securely fenced-in backyard. The fence was four feet high with two feet of barbed wire on top.
- The gate to Triplet's yard was secured from the inside by a metal pipe, preventing it from being opened from the outside.
- Bandit had a known tendency to 'guard his turf' by barking and running along the fence.
- Four to six weeks before the incident, Bandit bit a boy who had climbed a ladder over the fence into Triplet's yard. Triplet informed Pepper's mother of this previous incident.
- The established custom for retrieving balls that went over the fence was for the Peppers to knock on the Triplets' door and ask for assistance.
- On November 11, 2000, after his son's football went into the Triplets' yard and finding they were not home, Pepper decided to retrieve the ball himself.
- Pepper manipulated the metal pipe securing the gate, entered Triplet's yard without permission, and was bitten on the hand and stomach by Bandit when he bent down to pick up the ball.
Procedural Posture:
- Dustin Pepper filed suit against Thomas Triplet and Allstate Insurance Company in a Louisiana district court (trial court) seeking damages for his injuries.
- Following a bench trial, the district court rendered judgment in favor of Pepper, finding Triplet strictly liable.
- The trial court apportioned fault at 75% to Triplet and 25% to Pepper.
- Triplet and Allstate, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.
- A majority of the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the defendants' writ application to review the lower courts' decisions.
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 a plaintiff seeking to hold a dog owner strictly liable under the 1996 revision of Louisiana Civil Code article 2321 need to prove that the dog posed an unreasonable risk of harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Calogero, Chief Justice
Yes, to hold a dog owner strictly liable, the plaintiff must prove that the dog posed an unreasonable risk of harm. The 1996 revision of Louisiana Civil Code article 2321 preserved strict liability for dog owners but requires an interpretation of the phrase 'which the owner could have prevented.' The Court interprets this phrase not as imposing absolute liability, but as incorporating the pre-existing jurisprudential requirement that the animal must present an unreasonable risk of harm, as established in prior cases like Boyer v. Seal. Reading the statute to create absolute liability would be contrary to the legislature's intent to narrow, not expand, strict liability principles. Applying this test, Triplet's dog, Bandit, did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. The dog was secured within a well-fenced yard, and the owner had taken reasonable precautions. The risk was created by Pepper's own actions when he intentionally trespassed onto the property, thereby negating the security measures the owner had put in place.
Analysis:
This case is significant for interpreting Louisiana's 1996 tort reform legislation regarding animal owner liability. It clarifies that while the legislature preserved strict liability for dog owners, it did not create absolute liability. By merging the new statutory language ('could have prevented') with the pre-existing 'unreasonable risk of harm' test, the court ensured continuity in legal doctrine and prevented a radical expansion of liability. The decision solidifies that a victim's own conduct, such as trespassing, is a critical factor in the risk-utility analysis, even in a strict liability framework, thereby limiting the scope of a dog owner's liability to foreseeable, non-trespassing victims.
