Stolte v. Hammack
311 Ga. App. 710
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Stolte sues Hammack for injuries from a dog attack inside Hammack's townhouse; theories include the vicious animal statute and the premises liability statute.
- Cujo, a pit bull, lived in the townhouse with Hammack, Davis, Stolte, and Marek; Gannon was attacked by the dog on April 27, 2008.
- After the attack, the dog was kept locked in Davis's and Hammack's room when the residents were away; Stolte had previously interacted with the dog.
- Stolte testified he learned of the Gannon attack the following day and that he was aware the dog had previously bitten someone; he later was bitten by the same dog when walking it three months later.
- The trial court granted Hammack summary judgment, ruling Stolte and Hammack had equal knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity; on appeal, the court affirms.
- Stolte argues Hammack had superior knowledge of the dog's propensity and that Stolte's own knowledge did not negate Hammack's liability under OCGA sections 51-2-7 and 51-3-1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hammack had superior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity. | Stolte contends Hammack observed the attack or had knowledge beyond Stolte. | Hammack had no known superior knowledge; equal knowledge defeats liability. | No superior knowledge; equal knowledge bars liability. |
| Whether Stolte can recover under OCGA § 51-3-1 given equal knowledge of the dog's propensity. | Stolte argues premises liability applies despite equal knowledge. | Equal knowledge defeats premises liability under § 51-3-1. | Equal knowledge defeats premises liability. |
| Whether Stolte's arguments about obedience training and veterinary care affect the equal-knowledge analysis. | Stolte would show noncompliance by Hammack to undermine liability. | These disputes do not affect the equal-knowledge standard. | No impact on equal-knowledge ruling. |
| Whether Stolte's claim of coercion to take the dog outside has merit. | Stolte was allegedly coerced into taking the dog out. | Record shows no coercion. | No merit; no coercion shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durham v. Mason, 256 Ga.App. 467 (Ga. App. 2002) (owner liability requires superior knowledge of the dog's propensity)
- Wade v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 246 Ga.App. 458 (Ga. App. 2000) (premises-liability requires superior knowledge of dog's vicious propensity)