Steagald v. Eason
300 Ga. 717
Ga.2017Background
- Gary and Lori Steagald sued David, Cheryl, and Joshua Eason under OCGA § 51-2-7 after Lori was severely bitten by Joshua’s pit bull (“Rocks”) while visiting the Eason home.
- Joshua brought Rocks to his parents’ house after Cheryl insisted he build a pen; on the first day Rocks snapped and growled at Cheryl while she fed him and snapped/growled at neighbor Gary.
- About a week later, Rocks, on a lead but not confined to the pen, jumped on and bit Lori’s arm when she approached, then bit her leg as she fled; Lori sustained serious injuries.
- The Steagalds argued those prior snapping incidents put the Easons on notice of Rocks’s propensity to bite without provocation, creating liability under the statute.
- The Easons moved for summary judgment contending there was no evidence they knew Rocks was vicious or dangerous; the trial court granted the motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the prior snapping incidents could permit a jury to find the Easons had knowledge of Rocks’s dangerous propensity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether owner/keeper knowledge (scienter) of a dog’s vicious propensity can be inferred from prior non-biting aggressive acts | Steagald: Prior snaps/growls were attempts to bite and put Easons on notice of a propensity to bite without provocation | Easons: Prior incidents were mere menacing behavior and insufficient absent prior bites or attacks | The Court: Prior attempted bites or snapping, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, can permit a jury to infer knowledge; summary judgment improper |
| Whether OCGA § 51-2-7 imposes strict liability or negligence standard | Steagald: N/A (relies on proof of scienter) | Easons: N/A (argues lack of scienter) | The Court reiterated statute requires proof of the owner’s knowledge (scienter) and liability is negligence-based, not strict |
| Whether the “first bite rule” requires an actual prior bite | Steagald: Rule does not require an actual prior bite; attempted bites suffice | Easons: Prior non-bite incidents insufficient to establish scienter | The Court: The first-bite rule does not literally require a prior bite; earlier attempts to bite may establish scienter if they would put a prudent person on notice |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the evidence | Steagald: Evidence of snapping incidents creates jury question on scienter | Easons: No evidence of prior attacks; summary judgment warranted | The Court: Viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor, a jury could infer knowledge; reversal of summary judgment required |
Key Cases Cited
- Eshleman v. Key, 297 Ga. 364 (clarifies OCGA § 51-2-7 recognizes duty when keeper knows animal is vicious)
- Harvey v. Buchanan, 121 Ga. 384 (owner’s knowledge of viciousness is required at common law)
- Johnston v. Warendh, 252 Ga. App. 674 (dogs presumed harmless; plaintiff must prove dangerous nature and owner’s knowledge)
- Kringle v. Elliott, 301 Ga. App. 1 ("first bite" does not literally require a prior bite)
- Torrance v. Brennan, 209 Ga. App. 65 (owner’s knowledge may be inferred from incidents that would put a prudent person on notice)
- Raith v. Blanchard, 271 Ga. App. 723 (prior snaps/attempts can demonstrate scienter)
- Durham v. Mason, 256 Ga. App. 467 (unsuccessful attempts to bite can establish owner notice)
- Sinclair v. Friedlander, 197 Ga. 797 (knowledge must be shown even if statute silent)
- Rowlette v. Paul, 219 Ga. App. 597 (scienter is a necessary element)
- Munroe v. Universal Health Svcs., 277 Ga. 861 (knowledge/foreseeability inquiry analogous in other tort contexts)