333 Ga. App. 631
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Green, a cleaning-company employee, was injured by the Wilsons’ dog Nani while attempting to escape the animal.
- Mrs. Wilson regularly restrained Nani and warned cleaners they were safe after moving the dog to another room.
- On Oct. 11, 2011, Nani, outside a fenced yard, leapt over the fence and chased Green, causing Green to injure her arm.
- Evidence showed other cleaners were afraid of Nani, though Green did not see aggressive conduct by Nani herself prior to the incident.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Wilsons, holding no proven propensity by Nani to chase or injure, and no knowledge by the owners.
- The court reversed, concluding there was a genuine issue whether Nani had the propensity to chase and whether the owners knew of that propensity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact on knowledge of propensity | Green argues Wilsons knew of Nani’s propensity to chase/injure. | Wilsons contend prior behavior did not show propensity to chase; no knowledge of such propensity. | Summary judgment improper; fact question exists. |
| Whether prior aggressive or threatening behavior suffices to put owner on notice | Prior lunge/attack-like behavior shows propensity to chase/cause harm. | Prior aggressiveness alone is insufficient to establish propensity for the specific act. | Yes, raises a genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 246 Ga. App. 458 (2000) (dog owner's knowledge of prior chasing/menacing conduct supports liability)
- Torrance v. Brennan, 209 Ga. App. 65 (1993) (prudent-person notice standard—incidents need not be identical)
- Supan v. Griffin, 238 Ga. App. 404 (1999) (evidence of prior dog aggressiveness can raise issue of notice)
- Evans-Watson v. Reese, 188 Ga. App. 292 (1988) (reversing summary judgment when evidence shows knowledge of dog chasing/attacking)
- Kringle v. Elliott, 301 Ga. App. 1 (2009) (propensity requires similarity to the act causing injury)
- Phiel v. Boston, 262 Ga. App. 814 (2003) (barking/charging as aggressive behavior not enough to show propensity)
- Durham v. Mooney, 234 Ga. App. 772 (1998) (prior bark/growl alone insufficient for notice of propensity)
- Rowlette v. Paul, 219 Ga. App. 597 (1995) (propensity requires more than a single unconnected incident)
- Hamilton v. Walker, 235 Ga. App. 635 (1998) (dog must have prior act of the same kind to show propensity)
- Banks v. Adair, 148 Ga. App. 254 (1978) (evidence lacking to establish propensity bars recovery)