Strict Liability Imposed in Dog Bite Case

In a unique Trial litigated by Daniel Corley from the McGrath Law Firm, several children, including a seven year old girl, were playing hide and seek near defendants property. One defendant kept three dogs, two of which were owned by him, and one by his girlfriend co-defendant. The children were on the fence of the abutting property when one of the dogs jumped on the seven year old girl and bit her. The defendants claimed that the property was secured by an electric fence to keep the dogs on the property which was believed to be in working order on the day of the incident. There was a dispute as to whether or not the electric fence was operational in the 3/8 to 1/4 inches of snow on the ground.

Thus the Court found that it was "clear that the electric fence did not prevent the dogs from leaving the property and attacking the girl." The Court found strict liability for the girl's injuries because the dog(s) that bit the girl were owned, kept, or possessed by the defendant at the time of the incident. That although it was unclear which dog(s) bit the seven year old, this is irrelevant because at the time of the incident the defendant which owned two of the three dogs had "kept the other dog." Raymong v. Bugold 89 N.H. 380, 382 (1938). A person "keeps" a dog pursuant to RSA 466:19, "only when he either with or without the owner's permission undertakes the management, control, or care for it as dog-owners in general are accustomed to do." On the contrary, "one who permits the casual presence of a dog upon his premises cannot fairly be said to be its keeper."

In the instant case, the Court found that all the dogs lived in the defendants' shared residence. The defendant was present at the time of the incident was the only person at home when he let the dogs out in the yard. The defendant made sure the dogs were wearing their electric collars. The defendant went outside when he noticed the dogs barking and put them back in the house after the seven year old notified him that one of the dogs had bit her.

It was further noted that RSA 466:30-A (Dog Control Law) provides "it shall be unlawful for any dog to run at large, except when accompanied by an owner or custodian, and when used for hunting, herding, supervised competition, exhibition or training for such. . ." "At large" is defined as "off the premises of the owner or keeper and not under the control of any person by means of personal presence and attention as will reasonably control the conduct of the dog, unless accompanied by the owner or custodian." As per RSA 466:30-A, III a dog is considered to be a nuisance, a menace or vicious if it is at large and not under the control of a person by means of personal presence and attention. The Court found that in the instant case, despite the efforts to keep the dogs on the defendants' property through the use of an electric fence, the dogs left the premise and were not under the control of any person. However, the Court found that only the strict liability statute applied because RSA 466:31, II only provided for cities and towns to regulate dogs when a person is injured by a dog at large. In the instant case the police did impose a fine on the defendant for public nuisance, which he paid.

The Court awarded damages for pain and suffering, including fear of strange animals. In addition, the Court awarded including medical bills incurred by the plaintiff.