Connecticut Dog Bite Law
TITLE 22. AGRICULTURE. DOMESTIC ANIMALS
CHAPTER 435 DOGS AND OTHER COMPANION ANIMALS. KENNELS AND PET SHOPS
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357 (2003)
§ 22-357. Damage to person or property.
If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper, or, if the owner or keeper is a minor, the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for such damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog. If a minor, on whose behalf an action under this section is brought, was under seven years of age at the time the damage was done, it shall be presumed that such minor was not committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog, and the burden of proof thereof shall be upon the defendant in such action.
HISTORY: (1949 Rev., S. 3404; 1953, S. 1842d; 1969, P.A. 439, S. 1.)
NOTES:
1969 act added provision re actions brought on behalf of minors.
Title Notes:
*See Sec. 19a-341 re "right to farm".
Chapter Notes:
*Cited. 36 Conn. Supp. 156, 158.
Administrator as "owner". 74 C 85. Necessity of counting on statute. 77 Conn. 570. That person injured provoked dog as a defense under former statute. 81 Conn. 321. Action is one in tort. 86 Conn. 710. Cited. 102 Conn. 480. Statute held constitutional; elements of damage. 105 Conn. 89. Scope of exception. 106 Conn. 202. Negligence in operation of automobile not a "tort" within exception. 107 Conn. 626. Owner of dog held liable where dog jumped in front of automobile causing it to swerve into ditch and overturn. Id. Cited. 91 Conn. 492. Complaint should negative the existence of circumstances which would bring plaintiff within the exception. 117 Conn. 107. Defendant who pleaded an affirmation of the exception assumed burden of proof thereof. Id., 103. "Trespass or tort" construed. Id., 310. Conduct not within the exceptions, although it might be held contributorily negligent, is not a defense under the statute. Id. Cited. 119 Conn. 648. Wife, co-owner, liable with husband who thrust dog toward plaintiff's face. 129 Conn. 210. "Trespass or tort" means more than mere entry; statute bars recovery where plaintiff is committing or intends to commit an injurious act. 133 Conn. 509: 140 Conn. 358. See note to Sec. 22-327. Plaintiff may recover where menacing attitude of dog frightened him and caused him to fall. 138 Conn. 718. Friendly playing with a dog is not "teasing, tormenting or abusing." 142 Conn. 516. A plaintiff must bring himself clearly within the provisions because it creates a cause of action that did not exist at common law. 142 Conn. 719. Phrase "trespass or other tort" interpreted. 148 Conn. 125. That the plaintiff was on a public highway did not eliminate the possibility that she was committing a trespass within the meaning of the statute. Id. Plaintiff restrained dog with a leash from attacking another dog and from leaving the premises of its master, all in accordance with the wishes of its master; held that this did not come within the exceptions from liability under this statute. 148 Conn. 557. History of statute reviewed. Id. Cited. 221 Conn. 14-21, 23, 26. Cited. 231 Conn. 920. Doctrine of parental immunity bars action by unemancipated minor against parent alleging strict liability pursuant to statute; doctrine of parental immunity discussed. 234 Conn. 259-262, 264, 266, 267, 270, 271. Cited. 235 Conn. 360, 389; see also 40 Conn. App. 219 et seq. Cited. 241 Conn. 319.
Cited. 7 Conn. App. 19-22. Cited. 9 Conn. App. 495-497. Action under section barred by parental immunity doctrine. 34 Conn. App. 866-868, 870. Cited. 42 Conn. App. 239. Absent specific language in Sec. 52-557n modifying common law rule of governmental immunity for claims of strict liability, section should not be so construed. 58 Conn. App. 702.
Owner and keeper of dog liable in the alternative and not jointly. 5 Conn. Supp. 150. Trespass does not include technical or casual trespass. Id., 426; 18 Conn. Supp. 156. Controlled by three year tort statute of limitations. 14 Conn. Supp. 428. Assumption of risk has no place in an action brought under this section. But plaintiff must prove either that her own conduct was not such as would naturally incite the dog to retaliation or that it was, under the circumstances, justified. 22 Conn. Supp. 332. Cited. 25 Conn. Supp. 341. When a cause of action arises in a child for personal injuries under this section, an independent cause of action arises in his parent for consequential damages as a result of the injury. 26 Conn. Supp. 274, 275. But parent's right may be barred by conduct of his own which in whole or in part caused the damage. Id. Applicable statute of limitation is section 52-577. 26 Conn. Supp. 294, 296. Statute of limitation under the dog bite law is three years. 29 Conn. Supp. 71. Cited. 29 Conn. Supp. 72. Owners of premises where dog was kept considered "keepers" and held to be liable. 36 Conn. Supp. 156, 157.
Where plaintiff alleged, in her complaint, negligence and scienter on the part of the dog's owners, held that, notwithstanding plaintiff's claim of defendants' statutory liability, the action was one in negligence at common law and not under this statute. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 539. History discussed. Id., 541, 542. Petting of dog does not constitute teasing, tormenting or abusing dog. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 694.
TITLE 52. CIVIL ACTIONS
CHAPTER 901 DAMAGES, COSTS AND FEES
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240 (2003)
§ 52-240. Effect of damages on costs.
(a) In any action founded on tort tried in the Superior Court, if the damages found do not exceed fifty dollars, the plaintiff shall recover no more costs than damages, subject to the provisions of this section.
(b) If the title to property, or a right-of-way, or to the use of water, is in question, or if the damages were reduced so as not to exceed fifty dollars by reason of an act of the defendant pending the action, the plaintiff shall recover full costs.
(c) Judgment for nominal damages upon a hearing after a default or a demurrer overruled shall entitle the party in whose favor damages are given to the full taxable costs of the action.
HISTORY: (1949 Rev., S. 7985; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 117; 1963, P.A. 642, S. 53; P.A. 74-183, S. 89, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 135, 681; P.A. 82-160, S. 127.)
NOTES:
See Sec. 47-41 re consideration of notice as disturbance of right.
Title Notes:
*Cited. 176 Conn. 401, 407-409. Cited. 199 Conn. 496, 507, 513.
Cited. 4 Conn. App. 339, 344, 347.
Cited. 35 Conn. Supp. 609, 614, 615; 36 Conn. Supp. 47, 51.
Chapter Notes:
*See notes to Secs. 52-257, 52-265.
Cited. 235 Conn. 1, 40.
In statutory proceedings, if there is no provision of law or rule governing taxation of costs, costs may be awarded in court's discretion. 21 Conn. Supp. 331.
The title or right must be so brought in question that the record may show that it was decided. 18 Conn. 394; 1 R. 525; 52 Conn. 255; 54 Conn. 57, 58. If brought up under a plea and notice, it may be sufficient. 21 Conn. 80. Trespass qu. cl. fr. 21 Conn. 80; 25 Conn. 249. Case for diversion of water. 36 Conn. 151. Payment, pending suit. 19 Conn. 529; 39 Conn. 462. Return of property, pending suit. 1 R. 136. Retrospective law. 30 Conn. 326. Applied where count in tort beyond jurisdiction of court was added to count in tort and verdict was rendered for one dollar damages; 79 Conn. 305; and to action on statute for killing registered dog; 80 Conn. 435; or for bite of dog. 86 Conn. 710. Though charter of city gives its court same powers as justices of the peace, this section applies. 80 Conn. 437. Amendment of 1907 held to apply to pending case. 81 Conn. 216. "Default" and "demurrer overruled" have different meanings. 63 Conn. 266. Nominal damages. 119 Conn. 496. Cited. 218 Conn. 309, 318.
Tort defined. 7 Conn. Supp. 521.
Disclaimer: The dog bite, animal attack, personal injury, wrongful death, negligence or other legal information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice, nor the formation of a lawyer or attorney client relationship. Any results set forth here were dependent on the facts of that case and the results will differ from case to case. Please contact a dog bite lawyer or animal attack attorney for advice on your rights.
Copyright © 2004-10 US Dog Bite Lawyers - Animal Attack Attorneys and Dog Bite Lawyers serving the United States and MegaHunter, Inc. All Rights Reserved.