2009AP2457 Erdmann v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co.

Listen to this article

Torts
Dog injury statute

Public policy does not bar a strict liability claim against a homeowner under Wisconsin’s dog injury statute, sec. 174.02, where dog belonged to the homeowner’s daughter who lived with her.

“The facts of this case are much closer to those in Pawlowski than those in Pattermann. For the time that Plamann was away, Jorgensen sheltered, maintained, and protected Chase on her premises. See Pawlowski, 322 Wis. 2d 21, ¶31. Unlike the homeowner in Pattermann, Jorgensen made sure that Chase had water throughout the day, let him outside, and occasionally checked on him. She did far more than provide a ‘meal of mercy to a stray dog’ or permit Chase’s ‘casual presence’ on her property, both situations that we have concluded do not give rise to liability. Pattermann, 173 Wis. 2d at 151. Accordingly, we conclude Jorgensen both kept and harbored Chase and was therefore an owner for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 174.02.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2009AP2457 Erdmann v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co.

Dist. III, Oneida County, O’Melia, J., Brunner, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Laughlin, Theresa B., Wausau; Lanford, Rhonda, Madison; For Respondent: Knapp, Gregory L., Milwaukee; Vescio, Michael R., Milwaukee; Graf, Aaron J., Milwaukee

Full Text