CHRISTOPHER DILFIELD v. JAMES BEALING, A20A1124

Neighbors: James and Keri Bealing’s five-year-old son frequently played at Christopher and Lindsay Dilfield’s home; the Dilfields kept two dogs.
Incident: The Bealings’ son was later found to have been bitten on the leg by one of the Dilfields’ dogs and required medical treatment, including a 30-day rabies-shot series.
Vaccination status: The Dilfields told the Bealings the dog had not been vaccinated for rabies in over a year.
Claims: The Bealings sued for negligence per se and negligence for failure to vaccinate, seeking recovery for costs tied to rabies treatment and the bite injury.
Summary-judgment posture: The Dilfields moved for summary judgment conceding the bite but arguing there was no evidence they knew the dog had a dangerous propensity; the trial court denied the motion, finding factual disputes and suggesting a statutory vaccination violation might permit recovery without proof of propensity.
Appeal result: The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Georgia law requires evidence the owner knew of the dog’s dangerous propensity and that the Bealings presented insufficient evidence of such knowledge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a plaintiff may recover dog-bite–related damages (including costs of rabies treatment) without proving the owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensity	Bealing: Recovery may be based on negligence per se for failing to vaccinate; proof of prior knowledge of viciousness is unnecessary for these damages	Dilfield: Owner knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensity is required; absent such proof, no liability for bite-related damages	Owner knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensity is required; the court rejected the trial court’s suggestion that vaccination statute violations alone eliminate that requirement
Whether the evidence presented creates a genuine issue that the Dilfields knew the dog had dangerous propensities (proximate causation/foreseeability)	Bealing: Owner acts (crating the dog when the child visited; dog barking/jumping at passersby) indicate dangerous propensity and foreknowledge	Dilfield: Crating and barking do not show vicious propensity; there is no evidence the dog previously bit or acted aggressively	The evidence (barking and occasional crating) was insufficient as a matter of law to show the owners knew the dog had a vicious propensity; summary judgment should have been granted for the Dilfields

Custer v. Coward, 293 Ga. App. 316 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (plaintiff must produce evidence of a dog’s vicious propensity and the owner’s superior knowledge in dog-bite cases)
Steagald v. Eason, 300 Ga. 717 (Ga. 2017) (dogs are presumed harmless; courts require proof of a particular dog’s dangerous nature and owner’s knowledge)
Tyner v. Matta-Troncoso, 305 Ga. 480 (Ga. 2019) (even assuming a statutory violation, plaintiff must show owner knowledge of dogs’ tendencies to establish foreseeability)
Huff v. Dyer, 297 Ga. App. 761 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (barking at people generally is not evidence of vicious propensity)
Ellison v. Burger King Corp., 294 Ga. App. 814 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (summary-judgment burden: moving party may show absence of evidence and nonmovant must point to specific evidence creating a triable issue)
Norton v. Cobb, 284 Ga. App. 303 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review for appeals from summary judgment decisions)