Engquist v. Loyas, 2011 Minn. LEXIS 562

Amber Engquist was bitten in the face by a dog (Bruno) at the Loyases’ residence during a sleepover with friends.
Amber had never before been around Bruno; the basement crawl space where the bite occurred was dark and confined.
Amber and others called Bruno into the crawl space; Bruno growled, Amber moved back, and he bit her.
Amber sued for damages under Minn. Stat. § 347.22; the Loyases argued provocation as a defense.
The district court gave a two-part instruction: the statute’s language and a broad, ill-defined provocation definition.
The court of appeals reversed on liability, holding the provocation instruction materially misstated the law; the Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instruction on provocation misstated the law	Engquist contends instruction misstated provocation.	Loyases contend instruction was correct and adequate.	Yes; instruction materially misstated provocation under §347.22.
Nature of the dog-owner liability under §347.22	Liability is absolute subject only to provocation.	Liability should be conditioned by the provocation defense as defined by the statute.	Absolute liability subject to provocation defense.
Meaning of provocation under the statute	Provocation may include non-intentional conduct that invites attack.	Provocation requires voluntary acts with knowledge of danger by the victim.	Provocation requires voluntary conduct by the victim with knowledge of the danger.
Prejudice from the jury instruction	Misstated law prejudiced Amber on liability.	Any error was harmless or not prejudicial.	Instruction prejudiced Engquist; remand for new trial on liability.
Appropriate standard proposed for jury instruction	Court of Appeals’ proposed instruction correctly stated the law.	Appropriate instruction should reflect Bailey’s provocation standard.	Court adopted Bailey-based standard; rejected the proposed instruction.

Bailey v. Morris, 323 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1982) (provocation must be voluntary and knowledge of danger required)
Fake v. Addicks, 47 N.W. 450 (Minn. 1890) (voluntary provocation; defendant not liable when plaintiff knowingly provokes)
Lavalle v. Kaupp, 61 N.W.2d 228 (Minn. 1953) (statute is strict liability irrespective of negligence or scienter)
Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. 1981) (absolute liability under §347.22; provocation exception; contributory fault not a defense)
Olson v. Pederson, 288 N.W. 856 (Minn. 1939) (animal-dog liability; dangerous propensities in keeper’s knowledge)
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp., LLC, 790 N.W.2d 167 (Minn. 2010) (statutory interpretation; reliance on prior case law)