Morgan v. Marquis
2012 ME 106
| Me. | 2012Background
- Beans, a dog adopted from an out-of-state rescue, was part pit bull and not disclosed as dangerous.
- Morgan, experienced with dogs, met Beans in 2008 and prepared to trade care services.
- Morgan walked Beans and petted him inside the Marquises’ home; Beans initially showed no aggression.
- In October 2008, Morgan was bitten in the kitchen when she reached to pet Beans.
- Morgan filed suit in 2010 against the Marquises asserting statutory liability, common law strict liability, and negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Marquises on some counts in 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict liability standard applicability | Morgan argues Beans’ dangerous propensities are known or likely. | Marquises contend no knowledge of danger; pit bull generally not per se dangerous. | No genuine issue; strict liability not applicable under §509. |
| Negligence claim viability | Duty and breach exist; Morgan’s injuries foreseeable due to owner’s negligence. | Duty may exist, but breach is for jury; causation fact issue. | Summary judgment inappropriate on negligence claim. |
| Statutory liability keeper status | Morgan is a damaged party and may recover under §3961(1). | Keeper status excludes recovery; statute protects non-keepers. | Keeper status is a question of fact; summary judgment improper. |
| Keeper status timing of control | Morgan may have possessed or controlled Beans upon entering curtilage. | Keeper determination depends on when control occurred; not a legal conclusion. | Record supports multiple timelines; factual question for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parrish v. Wright, 828 A.2d 778 (Me. 2003) ( Restatement §509; abnormally dangerous propensities require knowledge)
- Young v. Proctor, 495 A.2d 828 (Me. 1985) ( owner must know danger; knowledge required for strict liability)
- Henry v. Brown, 495 A.2d 324 (Me. 1985) ( duty and foreseeability in dog negligence cases)
- Lewis v. Penney, 632 A.2d 439 (Me. 1993) ( whether duty is question for fact-finder)
- Inkel v. Livingston, 869 A.2d 745 (Me. 2005) ( guest/trespasser status; status questions often factual)