DuBOIS v. QUILITZSCH
21 A.3d 375
| R.I. | 2011Background
- DuBois was injured by a dog named Bear while inspecting a pigeon loft on Quilitzsch property; Bear was tethered near the loft in a yard with enclosing features; the incident occurred when an environmental inspector approached the loft; plaintiffs alleged strict liability, premises liability, and negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing enclosure and lack of knowledge of vicious propensity; trial court granted summary judgment which the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injury occurred within a proper enclosure triggering strict liability. | Plaintiff argues enclosure notice is insufficient or disputed. | Defendants contend the enclosure satisfies the statute and strict liability applies only outside enclosures. | Strict liability does not apply inside an enclosure; the issue is handled under common law. |
| Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact about defendants' knowledge of Bear's vicious propensities. | Defendants knew or should have known Bear could attack a stranger. | No competent evidence shows prior attacks or knowledge of propensity. | No genuine issue; no evidence of knowledge of vicious propensity, so summary judgment on negligence/premises liability stands. |
| Whether the one-bite rule bars common-law negligence and premises liability claims for invitees. | Invitee status should not bar negligence/premises liability in enclosed areas. | One-bite rule applies regardless of invitee status; no statutory modification. | One-bite rule applies; Rhode Island will not expand liability for invitees in dog-bite cases. |
| Whether the Sears delivery context creates a fact issue about knowledge of propensity. | Sr. Quilitzsch, Sr.'s statement about the dog not usually being tethered there shows propensity. | Statement is equivocal and not evidence of knowledge of propensity. | Equivocal statement insufficient; no material fact showing knowledge of propensity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferrara v. Marra, 823 A.2d 1134 (R.I. 2003) (one-bite/propensity knowledge requirement for dog-bite liability)
- Montiero v. Silver Lake I, LP, 813 A.2d 978 (R.I. 2003) (enclosure and one-bite rule; legislative policy on modification)
- Oldham v. Hussey, 27 R.I. 366, 62 A. 377 (R.I. 1905) (historical one-bite doctrine within enclosure)
- Johnston v. Poulin, 844 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2004) (statutory strict liability beyond enclosure; interpretation of enclosure term)
- Butti v. Rossi, 617 A.2d 881 (R.I. 1992) (enclosure notice standard in Rhode Island dog-bite cases)