Stennette v. Miller
316 Ga. App. 425
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Stennette, a in-home nurse, was bitten multiple times by Milo, Miller's dog, while at Miller's house to provide care to Miller's mother Amonds.
- Stennette had previously asked Miller to confine Milo and other dogs during visits; Miller complied on that occasion.
- On the incident day, Miller left the dogs in the house or a back yard enclosure; the dogs allegedly entered the house as Stennette entered.
- Stennette reported the incident to her employer and adopted a practice of confirming confinement before visits.
- The trial court granted Miller summary judgment on OCGA § 51-2-7 and § 51-3-1 claims but denied or reserved on the negligence claim for a voluntarily-undertaken duty; summary judgment on OCGA § 4-8-26 was not challenged on appeal.
- This appeal focuses on whether Milo’s vicious propensity and Miller's knowledge of it were proven, and whether Miller undertook a duty to keep the dogs away from Stennette.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCGA § 51-2-7 knowledge of propensities | Stennette asserts Milo had a vicious propensity and Miller knew or should have known. | Miller contends Milo had no proven propensity and no knowledge of such by Miller; no leash violation shown. | Grants affirmed; no triable issue on Milo's propensity or Miller's knowledge. |
| Premises liability under OCGA § 51-3-1 | Premises owner knew or should have known of Milo's dangerous condition. | No evidence Milo had vicious propensity or Miller's knowledge of it. | Grants affirmed; no genuine issue on Milo's vicious propensity or Miller's knowledge. |
| Voluntarily-undertaken duty to restrain dogs | Miller undertook to keep dogs away from Stennette and breached that duty. | No duty or breach, since prior confinement complied with requests. | Judgment reversed; evidence creates genuine issues about undertaking, breach, and causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durham v. Mason, 256 Ga. App. 467 (Ga. App. 2002) (knowledge of propensity required unless leash/heel violation shown)
- Oertel v. Chi Psi Fraternity, 239 Ga. App. 147 (Ga. App. 1999) (knowledge required to establish vicious propensity)
- Fields v. Thompson, 190 Ga. App. 177 (Ga. App. 1989) (propensity standard for vicious animal liability)
- Johnston v. Warendh, 252 Ga. App. 674 (Ga. App. 2001) (distinguishes leash/heel context from other ordinances)
- Wade v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 246 Ga. App. 458 (Ga. App. 2000) (premises liability requires knowledge of dangerous condition)
- Raith v. Blanchard, 271 Ga. App. 723 (Ga. App. 2005) (menacing behavior not alone proof of vicious propensity)
- Huff v. Dyer, 297 Ga. App. 761 (Ga. App. 2009) (menacing behavior not equivalent to known propensity)
- Osowski v. Smith, 262 Ga. App. 538 (Ga. App. 2003) (voluntary undertaking doctrine; jury questions on duty and breach)
- Bashlor v. Walker, 303 Ga. App. 478 (Ga. App. 2010) (speculation cannot create genuine issue of material fact)