Sinclair v. Okata
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19513, 874 F. Supp. 1051, 1994 WL 739892 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner's conduct is negligent as a matter of law when they leave a dog with a known history of biting unrestrained and unattended in an unsecured area. The violation of a municipal ordinance requiring dogs to be kept under restraint at all times also constitutes negligence per se.
Facts:
- The Okata family owned a German Shepherd named Anchor.
- The Okatas were aware that Anchor had bitten at least four people on prior occasions, some requiring medical attention.
- Yoshihide Okata, the 17-year-old son, had been warned by his parents about Anchor's behavior and instructed to keep the dog secured.
- On June 4, 1993, Yoshihide brought Anchor from the family's fenced backyard into the unfenced front driveway.
- Yoshihide left Anchor unleashed in the driveway and ordered the dog to 'stay'.
- Yoshihide then fell asleep inside a van parked in the driveway, leaving the dog unattended.
- While Yoshihide was asleep, the unrestrained Anchor bit two-year-old Daniel Reinhard in the face.
Procedural Posture:
- Katherine Sinclair, on behalf of her children, sued the Okata family in the Superior Court for the Third Judicial District for the State of Alaska (a state trial court).
- The Okatas (defendants) removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska (a federal trial court) based on diversity of citizenship.
- In federal court, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims for negligence, strict liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The plaintiffs then filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to find the defendants liable as a matter of law.
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 owner who, knowing of the dog's history of biting, leaves the animal unrestrained and unattended in an unfenced area negligent as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Holland, Chief Judge
Yes. A dog owner who leaves a dog with a known history of biting unrestrained and unattended acts so far below the applicable standard of care that their conduct constitutes negligence as a matter of law. While summary judgment on negligence is rare, Yoshihide Okata's actions were so clearly careless that no reasonable juror could conclude otherwise. He knew of Anchor's four prior bites, was specifically warned by his parents, brought the dog to an unsecured area, left him unleashed, and then fell asleep. This conduct was a direct breach of the duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent the animal from causing foreseeable harm. Furthermore, his actions violated an Anchorage municipal ordinance requiring dogs to be kept under restraint at all times, which constitutes negligence per se.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it illustrates the rare circumstances under which a court will grant summary judgment on the issue of negligence, which is typically a question of fact for the jury. The court found the defendant's conduct so clearly unreasonable and his knowledge of the specific danger so undisputed that it could determine liability as a matter of law. The decision also affirms the application of negligence per se for violations of local animal control ordinances, establishing that such 'leash laws' are safety standards designed to prevent personal injury, not just nuisance. This reinforces the principle that violating a clear public safety statute can be an automatic breach of the duty of care.
