Torts — dog injury statute — double damages

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Torts — dog injury statute — double damages

Ann Schroeder was attacked by a pack of dachshunds belonging to Jeffrey and Jody Kistner. Despite evidence of two previous attacks involving the same pack of dachshunds, the trial court concluded Schroeder was not entitled to double damages under the dog injury statute, Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(b). The trial court also denied Schroeder’s motion for additur following a jury verdict awarding her nothing for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering.

We reverse in part and conclude Schroeder was entitled to double damages. Under the circumstances of the present case, the availability of double damages under Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(b) is not contingent upon proof that the specific dog or dogs that caused Schroeder’s injuries also caused previous injuries. It is sufficient that the dogs were part of the same group that had participated in previous attacks. Accordingly, we remand so that the trial court may calculate the appropriate damages amount.

However, we affirm the trial court’s decision on Schroeder’s additur motion. Schroeder reasons that because she suffered economic damages, she must necessarily be entitled to non-economic damages. As we explain, this is contrary to Wisconsin law. Further, Schroeder has failed to establish the jury’s failure to award non-economic damages shocks the judicial conscience. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP2165 Schroeder v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. et al.

Dist III, Bayfield County, Anderson, J., Mangerson, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Lein, Matthew Curtiss, Hayward; For Respondent: Misfeldt, Thomas J., Eau Claire; Steffes, Ryan, Eau Claire