92 A.3d 213
R.I.2014Background
- Coogan, a UPS driver, was bitten on defendants' unfenced property while delivering a package on June 29, 2009.
- Cheryl Nelson had two dogs, Gizmo and Sammy; Coogan testified he was bitten while backing away from the dogs after they charged him.
- Plaintiff received medical treatment and later filed suit for personal injuries alleging negligence in securing the dogs.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (July 10, 2012), arguing lack of knowledge of a vicious propensity and no enclosure at issue.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Supreme Court later granted supplemental records and vacated the judgment for further proceedings.
- The court's decision centers on whether liability under Rhode Island dog-bite law attaches when the bite occurs inside an owner's enclosure and whether the owner knew of the dog's vicious propensities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the bite occur within the owner's enclosure under § 4-13-16? | Coogan contends enclosure status is fact-dependent and unfenced driveway creates a dispute. | Nelson argues no enclosure or that the driveway is outside the enclosure, thus no strict liability. | Genuine issue of material fact on enclosure question. |
| Was there knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities (one-bite rule)? | Prior incident and dog behavior raise an issue of defendant knowledge of propensities. | Prior scratch in 2000 does not prove a vicious propensity or defendant knowledge. | Genuine issue of material fact on knowledge of propensities. |
| Does the prior 2000 incident against Gizmo support a finding of vicious propensity? | Record shows a prior dog-related incident suggesting propensity, creating triable issue. | The 2000 incident involved a scratch, not a bite, and may be insufficient alone. | Prior incident could permit a factfinder to infer propensity; remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carreiro v. Tobin, 66 A.3d 822 (R.I. 2013) (liability for canine aggression well settled; enclosure inquiry sensitive to material facts)
- Montiero v. Silver Lake I, L.P., 813 A.2d 978 (R.I. 2003) (enclosure defined by notice of private area; factual enclosure inquiry)
- DuBois v. Quilitzsch, 21 A.3d 375 (R.I. 2011) (one-bite rule governs knowledge of dog’s vicious propensities)
- Ferrara ex rel. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Social Services v. Marra, 823 A.2d 1134 (R.I. 2003) (police report evidence can raise material fact about knowledge of vicious propensities)
- Wilbur v. Gross, 182 A.2d 597 (R.I. 1936) (enclosure concept and notice to entering premises)
- Bernhart v. Nine, 391 A.2d 75 (R.I. 1978) (commentary on reasonableness of enclosure requirements)