William Duckworth and Donnie Kaglear v. Susan Curole, 404 So.3d 831

Plaintiffs William Duckworth and Donnie Kaglear sued defendant Susan Curole for injuries and damages caused by Curole's dog during a July 14, 2021 incident.
The incident involved Curole's unleashed Boxer attacking and biting Duckworth and attacking plaintiffs' dogs in their own front yard.
Trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, finding Curole strictly liable for damages caused by her dog.
On appeal, the court initially found plaintiff's supporting evidence (requests for admissions) improperly attached and reversed the summary judgment.
Upon rehearing, it was determined the exhibits had been timely and properly filed, but misplaced in the record by court staff, leading to reconsideration of the evidence.
Requests for admissions (deemed admitted) established Curole owned the dog, the dog was unleashed, plaintiffs did not provoke the dog, and there was no third-party fault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Strict liability under La. C.C. art. 2321	Curole is strictly liable because her dog, unleashed, attacked and plaintiffs did not provoke	Initial argument questioned sufficiency of supporting evidence	Strict liability applies; plaintiffs met burden
Sufficiency/timeliness of summary judgment evidence	Exhibits were properly filed with the motion	Exhibits misplaced by the court, not plaintiffs' fault	Exhibits considered; summary judgment evidence valid
Provocation issue	Plaintiffs did not provoke the dog (admitted)	No evidence filed to suggest provocation	No provocation; element satisfied
Existence of genuine issue of material fact	No issue since Curole filed no opposition	Did not present evidence in opposition	No genuine issue; summary judgment proper

Pepper v. Triplet, 864 So. 2d 181 (La. 2004) (Sets forth the standards to establish strict liability against dog owners under La. C.C. art. 2321 and the requirement to prove unreasonable risk of harm.)