preview

Minnesota Dog Owner's Liability Statute (Section 346)

Decent Essays
Open Document

Whether or not an individual is considered to have been attacked or injured, under the Minnesota dog owner's liability statute, section 347.22, when she was thrown against a tree, when a dog sledding team veered off of a designated path in pursuit of an animal, causing her to suffer broken bones, bruises, and lacerations.
BRIEF ANSWER
Probably yes. Under Minnesota's dog owner's liability statute, section 347.22, a dog owner will be held to be strictly liable for the full amount of injuries sustained by an affected party, if their dog, without provocation, attacks or injures an individual who is acting peacefully in any place where the individual has a lawful right to be. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 347.22 (West, Westlaw through the end of the 2016 …show more content…

Preblich, on December 13, 1984, the plaintiff was driving through an alley behind his residence when he noticed that the lights of the defendants’ car were on. Through the back door of the house, he informed the defendant, and a friend of the defendant who had borrowed the car, that the lights were on. As the defendant’s friend opened the door of the home to go turn off the lights, the defendants two year old, thirty pound spaniel ran out the door and down the footpath towards the alleyway. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff walked down the footpath towards his car, the spaniel ran behind him, bumping into the back of the plaintiff's legs, causing him to lose his balance and fall. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff broke his wrist, and allegedly sustained back injuries. Boitz v. Preblich, 405 N.W.2d 907, 909 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). In this case, the court held that injuries inflicted by a dog outside the scope of a vicious attack are not, as a matter of law, excluded from coverage under the Minnesota dog owner's liability statute. The court reasoned that the statute does not indicate a limitation to vicious attacks, as the phrase "or injures" fully encompasses injuries other than those sustained by an attack. Id. at 910. The court also held that since the phrase “or injures” comprises injuries other than those from an attack, a dog owner may also be held liable under the Minnesota statute for injuries caused by the dog’s accidental or innocent …show more content…

The court in Morris found that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were the direct and immediate result of the dogs’ actions, and although no physical contact occurred, the dog’s actions caused the plaintiff to dismount his bicycle quickly, in order to avoid an imminent attack, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Similarly, our client never made physical contact with the dogs, sustaining her injuries when she was thrown from the sled, making direct contact with a tree. Although no physical contact occurred, the phrase “attacks or injures” insinuates actions by a dog that directly and proximately produces injury to the individual the dog attacks or injures. Lewellin, 465 N.W.2d at 65. While one might challenge that it would be easier to establish direct causation between ones injuries and a dogs actions through direct contact with the plaintiff, the statute’s language merely establishes an immediate implication by a dogs non-hostile behavior, in order to consider the dogs actions be covered under the language of "or injures. While there was no physical contact between Staycia and the sled dog’s, the dogs quick, veering off the fairly narrow path into the woods, caused Staycia to be thrown through the air, against a tree, invoking a direct and immediate result of the dogs actions of upsetting the sled. These facts invoke the statute’s

Get Access
Related
Get Access