Background
Annette Afonso was lawfully walking on a public street in Oakville when she was attacked by Sticky, a pit bull belonging to Isaiah Torres’s mother. The mother was visiting Torres at his home at 30 Emilie Avenue. Torres did not own the dog. At his mother’s request, Torres had let Sticky outside and secured the dog’s collar to a tether on the side of the house’s deck. The dog escaped its restraint and attacked Afonso on the street in front of Torres’s property.
Afonso sued Torres under Connecticut’s dog bite statute (General Statutes § 22-357), alleging that he “owned, kept, harbored, and/or controlled” the dog. She also sued for common-law negligence, alleging that Torres failed to properly restrain Sticky despite knowing of its dangerous propensities. Torres moved for summary judgment on both counts. The trial court granted the motion, and Afonso appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for Torres on both the statutory and common-law claims. The court held that Torres was not the legal “keeper” of Sticky under § 22-357. Under Connecticut law, a person qualifies as a keeper only if they exercise “dominion and control similar to that which would ordinarily be exerted by the owner in possession.” This typically includes evidence that the person was “feeding, giving water to, exercising, sheltering or otherwise caring for the dog.” Torres’s limited action of letting the dog outside at his mother’s request and securing it to a tether did not rise to this level of control, especially where the dog’s actual owner was present on the property.
Distinguishing the case from prior precedent in which temporary transport of a dog for an outing was sufficient to establish keeper status, the court noted that Torres did not have sole possession of Sticky and the actual owner remained on the premises. The court also held that Torres owed no duty of care to Afonso under common-law negligence because only owners or keepers of animals have such a duty. Finally, the court rejected Afonso’s alternative premises liability theory, holding that premises liability duties are limited to property controlled by the defendant and do not extend beyond property lines for off-premises dog attacks.
Key Takeaways
- Temporarily letting someone else’s dog outside at the owner’s request does not make one the legal “keeper” under Connecticut’s dog bite statute.
- To qualify as a keeper, a person must exercise dominion and control over the dog similar to an owner’s, typically demonstrated by feeding, watering, housing, exercising, or sheltering the animal.
- Non-owners and non-keepers of dogs owe no common-law duty of care to third parties injured by the dog.
- Premises liability claims cannot extend beyond a property owner’s boundary line for injuries caused by off-premises dog attacks.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies Connecticut’s approach to strict liability under its dog bite statute. The holding protects homeowners, family members, and others who may be asked to assist in caring for another’s dog—even temporarily—from exposure to liability. The ruling establishes that keeper status requires more than momentary assistance; it demands the type of sustained control and responsibility ordinarily exercised by an owner. This distinction is important for practical liability purposes, as it means that the actual owner of a dog remains the party chargeable with liability.
The decision also reinforces the boundary-based approach to premises liability in Connecticut, preventing the extension of property owner duties beyond their property lines when injuries are caused by animals owned by others. This protects property owners from liability for off-premises incidents they cannot reasonably control or prevent, while preserving the strong policy favoring strict liability against those who actually own or keep dangerous animals.