Burt v. Miller, No. 12-1934, 2014 Iowa App. LEXIS 257 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2014)
Overview
The Iowa Court of Appeals has affirmed that dog owners, pursuant to Iowa Code §351.28, are strictly liable for damages done by their dogs. The court ruled that the owner’s knowledge of a dog’s propensity to be vicious is not an essential element of claims against dog owners.
Facts of the Case
The incident leading to this case arose when an eleven-year-old boy and his father were staying with the defendant in the defendant’s home. Also in the home, was the defendant’s pit bull dog. During the first evening of the boy’s visit, the dog nipped at the boy’s hand, but did not injure him. The next morning, the dog knocked the boy down and bit his leg. The boy’s father, who was the only adult in the home at the time, removed the dog from the boy, but not before the boy was seriously injured. He had five surgeries, a skin graft, and spent sixteen days in the hospital. He still walks with a limp and cannot stand for long periods of time. The family incurred $54,655 in medical bills associated with the dog bite.
The boy’s mother filed an action against the defendant, alleging that he was negligent in failing to maintain control of his dog, knowing the reputation of pit bulls and knowing that the dog had nipped at the boy the night before. The district court entered judgment for the mother in the amount of $125,655, including damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium.
Appellate Decision
On appeal, the defendant urged that the district court erred in finding him one hundred percent at fault. He argued that he was not even in the home when the bite occurred, but that the boy’s father was and should have shared responsibility for the attack. He also alleged that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the dog had nipped at the boy’s hand the night before.
In affirming the judgment, the Court of Appeals first ruled that Iowa Code §351.28 imposes strict liability on a dog owner for damages done by the dog. Contributory negligence is not a defense under the statute. Therefore, the defendant’s claim that the boy’s father should share a portion of the fault was not supported by the law. There was no evidence that the boy was doing an unlawful act at the time or that the dog had rabies. Under the statute, these were the only defenses to strict liability for a dog owner.
The court also found that whether the defendant knew of the dog’s propensity to be vicious was not an essential element of the claim. Therefore, it was irrelevant whether the dog nipped at the hand of the boy the night before. Dog owners, the court stated, are absolutely liability, regardless of whether they are negligent or have knowledge of a dog’s vicious propensity.
Importance of This Decision
This case should remind dog owners of the great potential liability they face for the actions of their dogs. In Iowa, dog owners (regardless of breed) are one hundred percent responsible for the injuries their dogs cause, regardless of whether they as owners are negligent. Although not addressed by this case, the statute also imposes strict liability upon dog owners for damages caused by the dog “worrying, maiming, or killing a domestic animal.” Unless the victim of a dog bite is breaking the law in a way that directly contributes to the injury or unless the dog has rabies, there is no defense. The injuries to the child in this case were devastating. The Iowa legislature has decided that the owner of the dog, not the parents of the child, should bear the financial cost of such injuries.