Boswell v. Steele

Supreme Court of Idaho · 2017 · Torts

Tortsdog-bite liabilitystrict liabilitycomparative negligencemunicipal ordinance liabilitydog bitedomestic animaldangerous propensities

Facts

Stephen Boswell went into Mary Steele's home, where Amber Steele lived with her Scottish terrier, Zoey. Zoey was confined behind a gate, barked and growled as Stephen approached, and bit Stephen after he lowered his closed hand, removing flesh from his hand. Zoey had previously bitten other people and drawn blood on two occasions, and the Steeles kept a "Beware of Dog" sign on the gate and usually confined Zoey. At trial, the district court treated all claims as negligence claims and the jury found neither Mary nor Amber negligent.

Issue

Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury that all of the Boswells' claims sounded in negligence rather than instructing on common law liability for injuries caused by a dangerous dog and on liability under the Pocatello Municipal Code. The court also considered whether comparative responsibility applies to the common law claim and to the municipal-code claim.

Rule

For injuries caused by a domestic animal that is not trespassing, an owner or custodian is liable if he or she knew or should have known of the animal's vicious or dangerous tendencies; ordinary-care negligence is not an element of that claim. Under Pocatello Municipal Code section 6.04.050(E), an adult owner or custodian of a dangerous animal is liable for injuries caused by an unprovoked attack, and provocation is the ordinance's defense. Comparative responsibility may reduce damages on the common law claim, but it does not apply to the municipal-code cause of action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Boise, Lena Ortiz keeps a mixed-breed dog at her apartment. The dog previously lunged at two delivery workers and bit a neighbor once, and Lena knows about all three incidents. When her cousin Aaron Kim enters the apartment lawfully to help move furniture, the dog bites him while inside the unit.

If Aaron sues Lena under Idaho common law for injuries caused by a domestic animal that was rightfully in the place where it caused harm, which additional showing is required for Aaron to establish liability?

Explanation. The majority held that, for a domestic animal not trespassing, common law liability turns on the animal's vicious or dangerous tendencies and the owner or custodian's knowledge of those tendencies. Ordinary-care negligence is not an element. Prior bites may be evidence of dangerous tendencies, but the rule does not require any fixed number of prior attacks or an ordinance violation.