Weingartner v. Bielak
1955 Conn. LEXIS 200, 115 A.2d 668, 142 Conn. 516 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Friendly play with a dog, such as throwing and retrieving a toy, does not constitute 'teasing, tormenting or abusing' under a dog bite statute's exception to strict liability, as the exception applies only to conduct calculated to antagonize an animal and provoke it to retaliate.
Facts:
- Sharon Weingartner, a two-and-a-half-year-old child, was visiting an apartment with her parents.
- The defendants, who owned a cocker spaniel, lived in an apartment across a common hallway, and the doors to both apartments were open.
- Sharon and the dog began playing together in the hallway.
- The play consisted of Sharon repeatedly throwing the dog's rubber bone and the dog retrieving it.
- Sharon's mother, Lorraine Weingartner, was aware of the child and dog playing together.
- While Sharon was attempting to pick up the rubber bone for further play, the dog pushed her to the floor with its front paws.
- The dog's action caused severe lacerations to Sharon's face, resulting in a permanent scar.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Weingartner, through her next friend and mother Lorraine Weingartner, and Lorraine Weingartner individually, sued the dog's owners in a Connecticut trial court to recover for personal injuries.
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them a joint judgment of $2618 in damages.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the state's 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:
Does a child's friendly play with a dog, which consists of throwing and retrieving a toy, fall within the statutory exception to a dog owner's strict liability for conduct that constitutes 'teasing, tormenting or abusing' the dog?
Opinions:
Majority - Ustglis, C. J.
No. A child's friendly play with a dog does not constitute 'teasing, tormenting or abusing' the animal so as to relieve the owner of liability under the state's dog bite statute. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of the statute was to abrogate the common-law doctrine of scienter, which required proving an owner knew their dog was dangerous. The legislature later added exceptions for persons who were 'committing a trespass or other tort' or 'teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog.' The court interpreted these exceptions to cover only conduct that would naturally irritate a dog and provoke it to retaliation. The verbs 'tease,' 'torment,' and 'abuse' connote acts designed to annoy and irritate, which is distinct from friendly play that dogs ordinarily enjoy. Since Sharon's actions constituted friendly play and not provocation, her conduct did not fall within the statutory exception, and the dog's owners remained strictly liable for her injuries.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'teasing, tormenting or abusing' exception within Connecticut's strict liability dog bite statute. It establishes that the exception is to be narrowly construed and requires conduct that is inherently provocative to a dog, rather than merely interactive. The ruling protects individuals, particularly children, who are injured during what would be considered normal, friendly play, placing the burden of such unpredictable reactions squarely on the dog's owner. Future cases will look to this distinction between antagonistic behavior and friendly interaction when determining if the statutory exception applies.
