303 A.3d 88
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2023Background
- Appellee Amanda Breski was bitten on the leg in March 2018 by Hooper, a German Shepherd owned by appellants Emily Blitzer and Julie Colin, while Breski was on the shared alleyway/parking pad behind adjacent row homes in Baltimore City.
- Breski sued, invoking CJP § 3-1901 (owner strictly liable for injuries caused by a dog "running at large"); at trial the court granted Breski's motion for a directed verdict on strict liability, leaving only damages to the jury.
- A Baltimore City Animal Control report from August 2017 (containing an anonymous complaint and the officer’s notes) was admitted at trial; appellants objected on hearsay grounds.
- The jury awarded Breski $132,322 in damages for physical injury (puncture wounds, permanent pain, nerve damage/scarring) and emotional trauma; appellants moved for a new trial or remittitur arguing excessiveness.
- The trial court denied the post-trial motion; appellants appealed challenging (1) the directed verdict/definition of "running at large," (2) admission of the Animal Control record, and (3) denial of a new trial/remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in directing verdict that the dog was "running at large" under CJP § 3-1901 | Breski: Hooper was free, unrestrained, and not under control when he ran up and bit her; that meets "running at large." | Blitzer/Colin: The alley/pad were shared property; plaintiff needed to prove exclusive control or that the dog left owners' property; factual dispute for jury. | Court: "Running at large" means free/unrestrained/not under control and can occur on owner’s property; undisputed evidence permitted only one conclusion → directed verdict affirmed. |
| Admissibility of Animal Control report (anonymous complaint inside a business record) | Breski: Report admissible under business-record exception; the anonymous statement was offered to show Animal Control’s response, not to prove truth. | Blitzer/Colin: The anonymous complaint is hearsay within hearsay and inadmissible. | Court: Admission was proper because the anonymous statement was non-hearsay (offered to show the officer’s actions), so business-record foundation sufficed. |
| Whether the jury award was excessive and required remittitur or a new trial | Breski: Damages supported by testimony and expert showing permanent injury and ongoing limitations. | Blitzer/Colin: $132,322 is excessive and should shock the court’s conscience; remittitur or new trial required. | Court: Trial court did not abuse its broad discretion; damages supported by evidence of severe, permanent physical and emotional harm → denial of new trial/remittitur affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sugarman v. Liles, 234 Md. App. 442 (2017) (standard for reviewing motions for judgment as a matter of law/direct verdict)
- Ayala v. Lee, 215 Md. App. 457 (2013) (any legally sufficient evidence generates a jury question)
- Kranz v. State, 459 Md. 456 (2018) (statutory-construction principles; start with plain language)
- Bernadyn v. State, 390 Md. 1 (2005) (business-record hearsay principles and "hearsay within hearsay")
- Gordon v. State, 431 Md. 527 (2013) (de novo review where hearsay admissibility involves legal questions)
- Slack v. Villari, 59 Md. App. 462 (1984) (prior "at large" analysis under a local leash law — distinguished)
- Moura v. Randall, 119 Md. App. 632 (1998) (dog-bite on common grounds distinguished from single-family premises)
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420 (1992) (trial court discretion in ordering remittitur)
- John Crane, Inc. v. Puller, 169 Md. App. 1 (2006) (wide deference to jury verdict on damages)