Jaime Carreiro v. David Tobin, Alias
2013 R.I. LEXIS 88
R.I.2013Background
- Plaintiff Carreiro was bitten by Caitlin Regan's dog Angus on December 16, 2007, during a visit to the Tobin residence where Angus had visited the second-floor apartment.
- There is dispute whether the second-floor apartment is a separate enclosure from Tobin's first-floor apartment.
- Angus was in the Tobin residence (first floor) earlier that day and later brought to the second floor by Regan family members.
- Caitlin Regan was the registered owner of the dog; Tobin and Wendy Regan disputed Caitlin's residence status at the time.
- Plaintiff sued in Superior Court; Caitlin Regan was later dismissed; Tobin moved for summary judgment which the Superior Court granted in 2011; Supreme Court vacated and remanded.
- Rhode Island dog-bite liability varies by enclosure vs. non-enclosure and keeper liability under § 4-13-16 and 4-13-17, with Wilbur guiding the enclosure concept.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second-floor apartment is a separate enclosure under § 4-13-16 | Carreiro argues second floor is a separate enclosure. | Tobin contends enclosure concept focuses on notice to entrant, not strict separation. | Disputed factual question; not decidable on summary judgment. |
| Who is the keeper/owner liable under § 4-13-16 and 4-13-17 | Angus was outside Tobin's enclosure and Tobin may be keeper. | Owner Caitlin; keeper status unclear; knowledge/permission needed. | Remain unresolved; genuine issues of material fact exist. |
| Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment given disputed enclosure/keeper facts | Summary judgment improper due to disputed facts about enclosure and keeper. | Record supports dismissal if no liability under strict liability requires enclosure and keeper proof. | Judgment vacated and case remanded for trial to resolve material facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilbur v. Gross, 55 R.I. 473 (Rhode Island 1936) (enclosure definition hinges on notice to entrant rather than physical barriers)
- Bernhart v. Nine, 120 R.I. 692 (Rhode Island 1978) (enclosure notice and premises risk analysis for dog bites)
- Lamoureux v. Davis, 504 A.2d 449 (R.I. 1986) (enclosure marking and notice on premises where dog may be kept)
- Montiero v. Silver Lake I, L.P., 813 A.2d 978 (Rhode Island 2003) (landlord liability and dog presence on premises; knowledge of dog’s dangerousness)
- DuBois v. Quilitzsch, 21 A.3d 375 (Rhode Island 2011) (one-bite/scienter rule for dog bites in enclosure context)