Dog Bite

If you knew the dog and there was no history of agression, you may be out of luck suing the owner.
Concluding that the defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff, the court held that the trial court properly granted summary disposition in defendants' favor in this negligence action. Plaintiff, a 16-year old resident of a manufactured home community owned and operated by defendants, visited another residence in the community, owned by the Ys. Plaintiff had been to the residence several times without incident, as the Y's teenage son, H, was his best friend. However, on that particular date, the Y's "pit bull dog suddenly and without provocation bit plaintiff in the face, causing him serious injuries that required stitches and left him scarred." Plaintiff sued defendants asserting that they were negligent in, primarily, failing to warn him of a prohibited, dangerous dog, and protect him from the same. On appeal, plaintiff contended that genuine issues of fact existed as to whether defendants knew of the dog's presence in the Y's manufactured home, and whether defendants knew that the dog had dangerous propensities such that they owed plaintiff a duty to warn of and to protect him from the dog. While the trial court found that defendants owed no duty to plaintiff concerning the dog that bit him, plaintiff asserted that this conclusion was reached through the misapplication of pertinent case law to the facts of this case. Thus, he argued that the trial court erred in its ultimate conclusion. The court disagreed. Plaintiff testified that he had known H since he was in 5th grade and that H's family had owned the dog since that time. Plaintiff testified that he had been to H's house on an almost daily basis and had always seen the dog. According to plaintiff, the dog was usually outside, but it had also been loose in the house when he was there. He testified that he had pet the dog a couple of times before and was not afraid of it. He testified that on the date of the incident, he was sitting on the floor petting the dog and that the dog seemed happy to be petted, but as he withdrew his hand from petting the dog, the dog suddenly bit him in the face. "As in Szkodzinski, no evidence was presented to the trial court indicating that this dog had a vicious nature or that defendants had knowledge of any such nature. Plaintiff was well aware of the dog's presence and had been for many years." There was no indication that he reported the dog's presence or complained of the dog to defendants. "Instead, he repeatedly went to the dog's location, interacted with the dog and, according to his testimony, was not afraid of the dog." The only basis plaintiff presented for imputing knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities was found in the written "Rules and Regulations" issued by defendant-Colonial Acres. Plaintiff stated that "since defendants set forth in their Rules and Regulations that certain breeds of dogs ‘may be dangerous to others in the community' they acknowledged that pit bulls have dangerous propensities." However, defendants did not specify that certain dogs may be dangerous to the community. Rather, they simply prohibited certain dog breeds from being brought into the community. Assuming, without deciding, that defendants were aware of the dog's presence, the court held that plaintiff must still have established that defendants were aware that this particular dog had a vicious nature, and he failed to present any evidence establishing or even creating a question of fact as to such awareness. Considering all of the Braun factors as a whole, the court concluded that no actionable duty of care existed in this case. Affirmed.