Julie A. Augsburger v. Homestead Mutual Insurance Company, 856 N.W.2d 874

Kontos owned the Grandview property in Wisconsin but did not reside there; his daughter Janet Veith and her family lived on the property with horses and dogs.
Kontos purchased the property to help his ailing wife and to be near her; Veiths did not pay rent and Kontos provided financial support.
Dogs on the Grandview property were kept by Veiths; Kontos did not legally own or keep the dogs.
Julie Augsburger was bitten by four dogs at the Grandview property and sued Veiths, Kontos, and Kontos' insurer for damages under Wis. Stat. § 174.02.
The circuit court concluded Kontos was a harborer/owner under Wis. Stat. §§ 174.001(5) and 174.02(1); the court of appeals affirmed.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that mere ownership of land where a dog resides is insufficient to be an owner under § 174.02; the totality of circumstances shows Kontos was not a harborer or keeper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Kontos an 'owner' under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 by harboring or keeping the dogs?	Kontos harboring the dogs makes him an owner.	Ownership alone is insufficient; Kontos did not harbor, keep, or control the dogs.	No; Kontos is not an owner.
Does ownership of the property where the dog resides make the landowner a harborer?	Ownership suffices to make Kontos a harborer under § 174.001(5).	Ownership alone is insufficient; harboring requires more than land ownership.	No; ownership alone is not enough.
What role does the landowner's residence relative to the dogs play in harborer analysis?	Kontos provided shelter by owning the property used by Veiths and dogs.	Kontos lived apart and did not exercise control over the dogs.	påvirking: Court held the totality of circumstances governs; Kontos was not a harborer.

Pawlowski v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 322 Wis. 2d 21 (2009) (defines 'keeping' and discusses harboring under the dog bite statute)
Malone v. Fons, 217 Wis. 2d 746 (Ct. App. 1998) (landlord not harborer of tenant's dog; on-premises control matters)
Smaxwell v. Bayard, 274 Wis. 2d 278 (2004) (recognizes strict liability scope and related caselaw)
Pattermann v. Pattermann, 173 Wis. 2d 143 (Ct. App. 1992) (defines harboring vs keeping; sheltering/refuge concept)
Hagenau v. Millard, 182 Wis. 544 (1924) (habits of occupancy; on-premises residence matters)
Koetting v. Conroy, 223 Wis. 550 (1937) (keeper vs harborer; dog lived with defendant's family)
Nelson v. Hansen, 10 Wis. 2d 107 (1960) (historical baseline on strict vs negligence theories)
Chambliss v. Gorelik, 52 Wis. 2d 523 (1971) (historical view on strict liability framework for dog bites)