Poznanski v. Horvath, 788 N.E.2d 1255 (2003)—Dog Bite

Plaintiff was a minor who was bit by a dog. The dog had never bit anyone before and displayed no vicious tendencies. The dog was not of a vicious breed. The Supreme Court held summary judgment in favor of the dog owner was properly granted. Plaintiff argued the very act of the unprovoked biting was enough to establish a jury question as to whether the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious tendencies. The court seemed to indicate their result may have been different if the dog was of a more notorious breed.

Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman, 796 N.E.2d 271 (2003)—Dog Bite

Plaintiff was a mail carrier who was bit while making a delivery. The dog was temporarily being cared for by another family while its owner was out of town. Plaintiff sued both the owner and temporary caretakers. The owner argued she was not liable under I.C. §15-5-12-1 since she was not in possession of the dog at the time of the bite. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting an owner is almost always in the best position to know the propensities of their dog. The Supreme Court further held the owner was strictly liable under the statute which makes special provisions for public servants who are bit without provocation.