Maupin v. Tankersley
540 S.W.3d 357
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Maupin was attacked and seriously injured by a pack of dogs while walking across land adjoining Highway 1955; a motorcyclist rescued her.
- Maupin sued dog owner Roland Tankersley under KRS 258.235(4) alleging the dogs caused her injuries.
- At trial the court instructed the jury that owner liability required either (A) ownership plus reason to believe the plaintiff would be near the dogs, or (B) ownership plus failure to exercise ordinary care to control the dogs that was a substantial factor in causing injury.
- Maupin objected and sought an instruction imposing liability solely on proof of ownership; the jury found Tankersley owned the dogs but also found he lacked the specified culpable state (no reason to believe Maupin would be present and no failure of ordinary care), and returned a verdict for Tankersley.
- Maupin appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted review to decide whether KRS 258.235(4) imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries caused by their dogs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does KRS 258.235(4) impose strict liability on dog owners for injuries their dogs cause? | Maupin: statute makes owners strictly liable upon proof the dog caused the damage (ownership + causation). | Tankersley: liability requires additional proof such as reason to expect persons near the dog or failure to exercise ordinary care (negligence-premises concepts). | Yes. KRS 258.235(4) creates strict liability for dog owners when their dog causes injury; ownership + causation suffices to establish liability. |
| May plaintiff's own fault reduce recovery? | Maupin: unclear at trial; she argued strict liability for owner. | Tankersley: comparative/non-owner fault can negate or reduce recovery. | Comparative negligence is applicable to reduce damages proportionally under KRS 411.182(2); plaintiff's fault is considered in damages phase. |
| Were the trial court’s jury instructions legally correct? | Maupin: trial instruction misstated law by adding fault/prior-knowledge elements. | Tankersley: trial instructions reflected existing case law and were appropriate. | Instruction was incorrect because it departed from the statute and precedent recognizing strict liability; reversal and remand for new trial ordered with corrected instructions. |
| Is reversal barred because plaintiff failed to tender proper instructions at trial? | Maupin: tendered strict-liability instruction but did not request comparative-fault language. | Tankersley (concurring/dissent): Maupin failed to present required instruction forms and cannot raise new instruction theory on appeal under CR 51(3). | Majority reverses despite procedural arguments; concurrence would affirm on procedural grounds but agrees on comparative-fault guidance going forward. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benningfield ex rel Benningfield v. Zinsmeister, 367 S.W.3d 561 (Ky. 2012) (recognizes KRS 258.235(4) creates a form of strict liability for dog owners)
- Dykes v. Alexander, 411 S.W.2d 47 (Ky. 1967) (discusses contributory negligence and premises duties in dog-bite context)
- Johnson v. Brown, 450 S.W.2d 495 (Ky. 1970) (addresses statutory dog-owner liability under predecessor statutes)
- Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984) (adopts comparative negligence over contributory negligence)
- Sargent v. Shaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198 (Ky. 2015) (standard: review of jury instructions and statutory interpretation is de novo)
- Sand Hill Energy, Inc. v. Smith, 142 S.W.3d 153 (Ky. 2004) (clarifies when tendered instructions do not adequately present issues under CR 51)
- Bush v. Wathen, 47 S.W. 599 (Ky. 1898) (early analysis of statutes imposing owner responsibility for dog-inflicted injuries)