Trager v. Thor
516 N.W.2d 69, 445 Mich. 95 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A temporary caretaker of a domestic animal who lacks proprietary control is not a 'keeper' subject to common-law strict liability. However, such a caretaker may be held liable under a negligence theory for failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm.
Facts:
- Robert Thor owned a property that he rented to his son, Thomas Thor, and his family.
- On May 1, 1988, Robert Thor visited the property while his son's family was home with their English sheepdog, Chadwick.
- Robert Thor agreed to supervise the home and his grandchildren while his son and daughter-in-law went shopping.
- Before leaving, Thomas and Patricia Thor placed Chadwick inside the house.
- To prevent the dog from escaping when a workman arrived, Robert Thor placed the dog in a bedroom and closed the door.
- Rachael Trager, a neighbor child, entered the Thor house while Robert was supervising.
- Inside the house, Chadwick bit and scratched Rachael Trager, causing injuries.
- Robert Thor was aware of a prior incident in which Chadwick had bitten another child, though he believed the dog had been provoked.
Procedural Posture:
- Randy Trager, on behalf of his daughter Rachael Trager, and her parents sued Robert Thor (and the dog's owners) in a Michigan trial court.
- The trial court granted Robert Thor’s motion for summary disposition, dismissing all claims against him.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the statutory claim but reversed the trial court on the common-law strict liability and negligence claims, allowing them to proceed against Robert Thor.
- Robert Thor, as appellant, appealed the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the strict liability and negligence claims to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
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 person temporarily supervising a domestic animal considered a 'keeper' subject to common-law strict liability for injuries inflicted by the animal, and if not, can they still be held liable under a negligence theory?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyle, J.
No as to strict liability; Yes as to negligence. A temporary caretaker of a domestic animal is not a 'keeper' subject to common-law strict liability, but can be held liable for negligence. Strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal with known dangerous propensities applies only to a 'possessor,' defined as an owner or 'keeper.' To be deemed a 'keeper,' a person must exercise proprietary control akin to ownership, which includes the ability to decide whether to expose the community to the animal's potential danger. A temporary caretaker, like a babysitter, lacks this control and does not choose to introduce the risk, so it is inequitable to impose strict liability. However, a negligence cause of action is appropriate. A person in temporary possession of an animal has a duty to exercise the control a reasonable person would use based on the circumstances, including any knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities. Because Robert Thor knew of a prior bite, a question of fact exists as to whether he was negligent in his supervision of Chadwick, precluding summary disposition on the negligence claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of liability for non-owners who temporarily control domestic animals. By rejecting strict liability for temporary caretakers, the court limits this no-fault theory to those with long-term, proprietary control who can properly be said to have introduced the animal's risk to the community. At the same time, by upholding the viability of a negligence claim, the court ensures that temporary caretakers are still held accountable for failing to act with reasonable care. This establishes a two-tiered liability framework that distinguishes between owners/keepers and temporary custodians like pet-sitters or babysitters, influencing how duties of care are assessed in future animal injury cases.
Unlock the full brief for Trager v. Thor