Post v. Annand
1992 WL 213278, 798 F. Supp. 189, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13339 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Connecticut's strict liability dog bite statute, a person or entity is a 'keeper' of a dog only if they harbor the animal by providing lodging and shelter, or possess it by exercising dominion and control; mere acquiescence to the dog's presence on a property is insufficient to establish keeper status.
Facts:
- Suzanne Post was a graduate student at Yale Divinity School, living in a building known as the Berkeley Center.
- James Annand, the Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School, and his wife Constance lived in an apartment within the same building, which was owned by the Divinity School.
- The Annands were caring for a chocolate labrador named Rocky, which belonged to their son.
- Rocky lived with the Annands in their apartment and was frequently present in the common areas of the Berkeley Center.
- The Dean had authorized the construction of a dog pen in the Center's yard.
- On November 28, 1990, the Annands asked Post to their apartment to give instructions for dog-sitting while they were away.
- While Constance Annand was demonstrating how to feed the dog, Rocky reared up and bit Post on the nose, causing significant injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Suzanne Post filed a lawsuit against James and Constance Annand and the Berkeley Divinity School of Yale University in the United States District Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- A separate defendant, the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, was dropped from the case prior to this decision.
- Plaintiff Suzanne Post filed a motion for summary judgment against the remaining defendants.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Connecticut Gen. Stat. § 22-357, is an institution a 'keeper' of a dog, and therefore strictly liable for its bite, when the dog is owned by a resident, lives on the institution's property, and is permitted access to common areas?
Opinions:
Majority - Goettel, District Judge
No. An institution is not a 'keeper' of a dog merely because it allows the dog of a resident to be present on its premises. The court first determined that under New York's choice of law rules, Connecticut's substantive law applies due to the significant contacts with that state. Connecticut Gen. Stat. § 22-357 imposes strict liability on a dog's 'owner or keeper.' While the Annands are clearly keepers, the Divinity School's liability hinges on whether it can also be deemed a 'keeper.' A 'keeper' is defined as one who harbors or has possession of a dog. To 'harbor' a dog means to provide it with lodging, shelter, or refuge, while 'possession' requires the exercise of dominion and control. The court found that the Divinity School's mere acquiescence to Rocky's presence in common areas and permitting a dog pen to be built did not constitute harboring or control. Citing precedent like Falby v. Zarembski, the court reasoned that without evidence that the School fed, housed, or otherwise controlled the dog's actions, it could not be held strictly liable. Therefore, liability rests solely with the Annands.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal standard for 'keeper' liability under Connecticut's strict liability dog bite statute, particularly for institutional property owners like landlords or schools. It establishes that passive allowance or tolerance of a resident's animal on the premises, even in common areas, is not enough to impose strict liability. The ruling creates a clear distinction between mere acquiescence and the affirmative acts of harboring or exercising control, which are required to be deemed a 'keeper.' This precedent protects property owners from being automatically held liable for the actions of their tenants' or residents' animals, requiring plaintiffs to prove a higher level of involvement by the property owner in the animal's care and control.
