00-2476 Gasper, a minor v. Parbs

Listen to this article

“Wisconsin Stat. sec. 174.02(1)(b) provides double damages when the owner of an injury-causing dog was ‘notified or knew that the dog previously injured or caused injury to a person, livestock or property.’ This language is plain and unambiguous. If construed literally, it imposes double damages on the owner of an injury-causing dog whenever the owner has notice that his or her dog has previously caused any injury to a person, livestock or property. We conclude, however, that this literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result if applied to impose double damages in this case.

“We agree with the trial court that virtually all puppies chew on various items they encounter, including shoes, toys, bones, newspapers, plastic containers, and furniture. If the statute were routinely applied in the manner suggested by Monika, damages would be doubled in nearly every case in which a dog injures or causes injury. We do not believe the legislature intended this result….

“Accordingly, we hold that a dog owner does not have notice within the meaning of Wis. Stat. sec. 174.02(1)(b) simply because the owner knows that the dog, as a puppy, chewed on household items. We do not hold that the acts of a puppy will never give a dog owner notice within the meaning of sec. 174.02(1)(b), only that the sort of normal teething behavior involved in this case does not give such notice.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Milwaukee County, Sullivan, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Mont L. Martin, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Patrick S. Nolan, Milwaukee; Aynsley B. Bourne, Milwaukee