Background
Abigail Goldman-Nagel was waiting in a hallway for an elevator in a Madison condominium building when Pako, a dog owned by unit owners Bradley Werntz and Vera Naputi, bit her hand. Werntz was in the elevator with Pako at the time. Goldman-Nagel sued the condominium association, alleging that its board knew Pako was dangerous and negligently failed to take measures that could have prevented the bite.
The association obtained summary judgment in Dane County Circuit Court. Goldman-Nagel argued on appeal that the association was strictly liable as Pako’s statutory “owner” because it harbored or kept the dog, and that it was liable under common-law negligence principles.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. The association was neither a harborer nor a keeper of Pako under Wisconsin’s dog-bite statute. The undisputed evidence showed that Werntz and Naputi alone fed, sheltered, and cared for Pako in their individually owned unit. Association rules governing pets in units and common areas regulated the premises, not the dog itself.
The court also held that the association could not be liable in negligence merely because it owned or controlled common property and allegedly knew Pako posed a danger. Wisconsin precedent bars dog-bite negligence claims against landowners in their capacity as landowners unless they also owned or kept the dog. The association did not own or keep Pako, so the negligence claim failed as a matter of law.
Key Takeaways
- A condominium association’s pet rules do not by themselves make it a dog’s harborer or keeper.
- Harboring turns on providing shelter or refuge as part of the dog’s household; keeping requires care, custody, or control over the dog.
- Knowledge that a dog may be dangerous does not establish statutory owner status or overcome Wisconsin’s public-policy limitation on landowner negligence liability.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Wisconsin’s existing dog-bite rules to condominium associations. An association’s authority to regulate pets in common areas or enforce pet-related rules is control over property, not dominion over a resident’s dog.
Absent ownership, harboring, or keeping of the dog, an association cannot be held strictly liable under the dog-bite statute or liable in negligence solely for its role as owner or manager of condominium property.