Martin ex rel. Martin v. Christman

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a strict-liability claim arising from a dog-bite injury to a child. The court held that Vermont common law requires proof of the dog owner's negligence and declined to judicially adopt strict liability for dog bites, concluding that any change should be made by the Legislature.

Holdings

1. Vermont retains the common-law rule that liability for injuries caused by a dog requires proof of the owner's negligence; the court declined to create a strict-liability rule by judicial decision.
2. The trial court properly dismissed the strict-liability claim because Vermont law did not recognize liability against dog owners based solely on the dog's attack.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Vermont should abandon its common-law rule requiring proof of a dog owner's negligence as the basis for liability for personal injuries inflicted by the dog.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the Martins' strict-liability claim under existing Vermont precedent.

Disposition

affirmed