Parrish v. Wright, 2003 ME 90

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed summary judgment for homeowners whose adult daughter's dog injured the plaintiff while the homeowners were away. The court held that the homeowners were not keepers or possessors of the dog, lacked evidence of knowledge of its dangerous propensities, and had no established duty to require the daughter to leash or train the dog.

Holdings

1. The Wrights were not keepers of Augustus because they lacked care, custody, and control of the dog and were not present in Maine when the incident occurred.
2. The Wrights were not subject to common-law strict liability because they were not possessors of Augustus at the time of the incident.
3. The Wrights did not owe Parrish a duty to require their daughter to leash or train Augustus or to warn about the dog because Maine law had not established such a duty for a property owner who was not present and who lacked knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Charles and Edith Wright were keepers of Augustus within the meaning of 7 M.R.S.A. § 3961.
2. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the Wrights' common-law strict liability for possessing or harboring a dog with dangerous propensities.
3. Whether the Wrights owed Parrish a common-law duty to require their daughter to keep Augustus leashed, train the dog, or warn Parrish about the dog's dangerous propensity or whereabouts.

Disposition

affirmed