Dog Bite Liability: Is a Separated Spouse an Owner?

The two defendants, a husband and wife, were separated but not yet divorced. The wife was no longer living with the husband but was still a joint owner of their residence. The husband asked the plaintiff to look after his dog at the residence while he was away for the weekend. The plaintiff alleges that while at the defendants’ house, the dog bit him, causing damages. The husband was contacted by animal control. He then called his wife who drove to the residence and provided the animal control officer with a copy of the dog’s rabies vaccination.

Dog Bite Liability: Can a Separated Spouse Be an “Owner”?

The wife never took possession of the dog. However, at all times, the wife knew that the dog lived with the husband at their residence. The wife now moves for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claims, the first of which is brought pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 22-357, commonly referred to as the dog bite statute. Said statute provides that if a dog does damage to the body of any person, the owner or keeper shall be liable for the amount of such damages. The second claim alleges negligent infliction of emotion distress. Summary judgment was granted as to the second count at oral argument for this motion. The parties do not dispute that the wife was not a keeper of the dog. The only remaining issue is whether the wife was an owner of the dog on the date of the incident as defined under § 22-357. The term “owner” is not statutorily defined. However, the Connecticut Supreme Court has provided that the term simply means “the person to whom the dog belongs, in the sense that he has title to it and may lawfully have and hold it as his own personal property.”

Superior Court Denies Summary Judgment in Dog Bite Case

Under this legal principle, the court concludes that the wife has failed to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact that she is not the owner of the dog. There are facts relevant to the ownership issue arising from the relationship between the husband and wife at the time of the incident that require resolution by the trier of fact. At the time of the incident, the defendants were still married. Both defendants owned the residence where the incident occurred and where the dog lived exclusively with the husband. The husband called the wife to deal with the incident and the wife produced current rabies vaccination documents for the dog. These are material facts which must be considered when deciding whether the wife is a “person to whom the dog belonged” in a general sense. Accordingly, the court denies the wife’s motion for judgment on the first count. Delmoro v. Saucier, No. AAN-CV-20-6039165, 2025 WL 397087 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 24, 2025)