Fido gets a reprieve: Lawmakers hold off on bill to modify dog liability statute

Listen to this article

After hearing public testimony on a bill that would modify the state’s statutes on dog liability, a state Senate panel has tabled the proposal for further discussion.

Current law holds dog owners liable for damage to property and injury of people and other domestic animals. They are also generally liable for double damages if the owner knew the dog had previously damaged property or injured someone. The penalties range from $50 to $500 in forfeitures. If the injury is done by a dog whose owner knew the dog had destroyed property or injured someone previous, the upper limit of the forfeiture penalty is $1,000.

Also, states and municipalities may ask a court to order police to kill a dog. The order may only be issued if the dog has caused serious injury to a person or animal two separate times, off of the owner’s property, without reasonable cause, and the owner knew before the second injury that the dog caused the first injury.

The proposal limits the bill to include liability only for dog bites without provocation that break the skin and leave a scar. It also increases the upper limits for the penalty to $2,000 and $5,000 for owners who knew the dog had previously caused damage or injury.

The bill would also let people who are injured by a dog or whose pet or child is injured by a dog ask for a court order to have that dog killed.

The Senate Committee on Insurance, Housing and Trade held a public hearing on the bill, SB 286, on Tuesday. It was scheduled for a vote, but the committee chairman, Sen. Frank Lasee, postponed it after hearing testimony from supporters and proponents of the bill.

Proponents say the bill would clarify the state’s statute, lower the cost of insurance coverage for people who own dogs, especially those in rural parts of the state and reduce the amount of litigation that is often needed for individual claims.

James Viney, a representative of Sugar Creek Mutual Insurance in Elkhorn, testified Tuesday that the bill provides much-needed improvement to the law by preventing mere property damage, say from a puppy chewing up a baseball mitt, from being counted as a first occurrence.

Many times, he said, he finds himself working on claims where the property damage, considered a first occurrence, causes clients to have to choose between losing their liability coverage or having their dog put down.

Viney’s company, he said, is small; it has about 1, 636 policies.

Opponents of the bill contend that that case law has firmly established the limits of the statute and that the bill would remove the incentive for owners of vicious dog.

Milwaukee attorney Ann Jacobs, who is also president of the Wisconsin Association of Justice, the state’s association for trial attorneys, said the bill has a number of problems, including how it could pose a privacy issue because it requires attorneys to find people who the dog has previously bitten.

“(The victim) has every right to tell me to drop dead,” she said.

It could lead to them being put in the awkward situation of having to subpoena someone to show a bite in a sensitive area, Jacobs said.

The double damages, she said, give dog owners an incentive to keep tabs on their pets.

“Aggressive dogs who are aggressive for a second time need to be held responsible in a heightened way,” said Jacobs.

And the extra cost, she said, is just part of the insurance business.

“We insure people for all sorts of risk things,” she said. “We insure speeders … 16 year olds … because we charge them more. It’s what we do, it’s how insurance works.”

The association has proposed an amendment to the bill that would retain the incentive for owners of dogs with a tendency to bite to take measures to ensure their pet doesn’t pose a danger. Follow @erikastrebel