Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant in an action arising from a dog attack. It held that the defendant was not the dog’s statutory keeper because his limited acts of bringing the dog outside and securing it at the owner’s request did not constitute control similar to that exercised by an owner. The court also concluded that the defendant owed no duty under the plaintiff’s common-law negligence or premises-liability theories.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact that Torres was the keeper of Sticky under General Statutes § 22-357.
- Whether Torres owed Afonso a duty of care under common-law negligence principles.
- Whether Torres could be liable under premises liability principles for a dog attack occurring on a public street rather than on property under his control.
Holdings
- The trial court properly granted summary judgment on the statutory dog-bite claim because no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Torres was Sticky's keeper. Torres's limited acts of bringing the dog outside and securing it to a tether at the request of the owner, who was present, did not establish that he exercised control over the dog in a manner similar to that ordinarily exerted by the owner.
- The trial court properly granted summary judgment on the common-law negligence claim because Torres, who was neither the owner nor the keeper of Sticky, owed Afonso no common-law duty of care for injuries caused by the dog.
- The trial court properly granted summary judgment on the premises liability theory because the attack occurred on a public street, outside property or common areas under Torres's control, and premises liability does not extend beyond the property line in these circumstances.
Key quotations
“a person will not be deemed to be a keeper of a dog under § 22-357 unless that person exercises control over the dog in a manner similar to that which would ordinarily be exerted by the owner.” (Part I)
“If a court determines, as a matter of law, that a defendant owes no duty to a plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot recover in negligence from the defendant.” (Part II.A)
“The duty does not, however, extend to uncontrolled land such as neighboring property or public lands.” (Part II.B)
Factual background
On March 19, 2021, Annette Afonso was lawfully walking on Emilie Avenue when she was attacked by Sticky, a pit bull owned by Isaiah Torres's mother, in the street in front of Torres's property. At the mother's request, Torres had let Sticky outside and secured the dog's collar to a tether on the property's deck; the mother was present on the property. Torres did not own Sticky and submitted evidence that he was not responsible for maintaining, controlling, feeding, exercising, sheltering, or otherwise caring for the dog in substitution for the owner.
Procedural history
Afonso commenced an action in the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury seeking damages for injuries sustained when a dog attacked her on a public street. The trial court, Parkinson, J., granted Torres's motion for summary judgment on both counts and rendered judgment for him. Afonso appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court, which affirmed.