Overview of Washington State's Dog Bite Laws - Part #2

Overview of Washington State's Dog Bite Laws - Part #2

Liability Imposed Against the Dog's "Owner"

Washington's dog bite statute only imposes liability
against the "owner" of the dog. So occasionally a dispute
arises about who actually owns the dog. For instance, if
the person who harbors and takes care of the dog is not the
true legal owner of the animal, can this person still be
liable for the injuries inflicted by the dog? The answer
is usually yes. Although the dog bite statute refers to
liability of the dog "owner," there are court decisions
that broadly define the owner to include one who possesses
and/or cares for the dog.

In one case that occurred back in 1988, the dog was
purchased and "owned" by a young woman. But the woman kept
her dog at her grandmother's home. The grandmother resided
with and cared for the dog during a three-year period
before the dog bit and injured another person. The
question was whether the grandmother could be held liable
for the injuries when she was not necessarily the true
owner of the dog. A Washington State court answered yes.
The grandmother's conduct of harboring and caring for the
dog over a three-year period was sufficient conduct to make
her an "owner" of the dog for purposes of imposing
liability under the statute. The court seemed to focus on
the fact that the grandmother acted like the owner of the
dog over a long period of time. Perhaps this case sends
the message that if you act like the dog's owner, or if you
hold yourself out to others as the owner of the dog, you
may be responsible for any injuries or damages that dog
inflicts upon others.

Furthermore, there may be various local regulations and
ordinances that also broadly define the owner of a dog. In
King County a dog owner is broadly defined as "any person
having an interest in or right of possession to the animal,
or any person having control, custody, or possession of an
animal...or by reason of the animal being seen residing
consistently at a location, to an extent such that the
person could be presumed to be the owner." This
definition is broad enough to include any person who
harbors or keeps the dog for a period of time that is
sufficient to cause one to believe that the person may be
the true or legal owner, even if that person is not.

The question may arise: what period of time is sufficient
to cause one to believe that one who harbors the dog is the
true or legal owner of that dog? This is a factual
question that may need to be resolved by a jury.
Certainly, the longer a person acts like the dog's owner,
or engages in conduct similar to the owner, means the
greater likelihood that this person may also be legally
responsible for the dog's dangerous or vicious propensities
toward other human beings.

Although the dog's "owner" may be defined quite broadly,
there are certain limitations that exist. For instance,
the question has been raised whether a landlord can be
considered an "owner" of the dog for purposes of subjecting
the landlord to liability under the dog bite statute.
Washington courts have clearly stated no. A landlord will
usually not be considered the dog's owner just based on
that person's status as a landlord. Thus, if the dog
owner is a renter or if the dog attack occurred on property
that was being leased, the victim cannot rely on the dog
bite statute to attempt to impose liability on the person
who either owns or controls the property, unless that
person also shares the responsibility of keeping, feeding
and harboring the dog - tasks usually performed by the
dog's true owner.

About the Author:

Christopher M. Davis is a Seattle attorney focusing on
personal injury cases. He is also known as a dog bite and
animal attack lawyer and has written the book 'When The Dog
Bites' as a legal resource for dog bite victims. For more
information about Washington State dog bite law visit:
http://www.injurytriallawyer.com/practice_areas/dog-bites-an
imal-attacks.cfm

.

__,_._,___