Premises Liability / CT Appellate Court Rules Non-Keeper Not Liable for Dog Attack

Premises Liability: Appellate Court refuses to extend liability to a nonowner and nonkeeper of a dog for injuries sustained when the plaintiff was attacked on a public street in front of the defendant’s property:

The plaintiff commenced the underlying action seeking damages as a result of an incident involving a dog on the premises owned by the defendant. The first count asserts a claim against the defendant pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 22-357, Connecticut’s Dog Bite Statute. The second count is purportedly based in common law negligence. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether he was the owner or keeper of the dog, as required under Section 22-357. The defendant further argued that under the facts of the case, he owed no duty to the plaintiff upon which liability can be predicated in the second count. The plaintiff objected, and the lower court heard oral argument from both parties. The lower court rendered its decision, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to both counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the lower court erred in concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to whether, as to the plaintiff’s statutory claim, the defendant was the keeper of the dog in question and whether, as to the negligence claim, the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. With regard to whether the defendant was the owner or keeper of the dog, the Appellate Court finds that the defendant’s limited action of bringing the subject dog outside and securing him to his leash, at the request of the defendant’s mother who was present on the property, does not establish that the defendant “exercised control over the dog in a manner similar to that which would ordinarily be exerted by the owner.” Instead, the Appellate Court holds that the evidence establishes no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant was not the owner or keeper of the subject dog and therefore, summary judgment as to the first count of the plaintiff’s claim was properly granted by the lower court. The Appellate Court analyzes the second count of the plaintiff’s complaint and finds it unclear whether the plaintiff asserted a claim based in common-law negligence or premises liability. Regardless, the Appellate Court concludes that the plaintiff cannot prevail on either claim. The Appellate Court declines to extend the common-law duty of care to non-owners and non-keepers of a dog and therefore, under the principles of common-law negligence, the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty. Additionally, the Appellate Court is unwilling to expand the law of premises liability to impose a duty on the defendant, a non-owner and non-keeper of the subject dog. Therefore, the Appellate Court affirms the lower court’s judgment granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to both counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. Afonso v. Torres, 238 Conn. App. 489, 505, 356 A.3d 1204 (2026), cert. granted, 354 Conn. 951, 357 A.3d 252 (2026).