Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.9-33

Anyone who owns or keeps a dog is held strictly liable under our law for any damage caused by

the dog, irrespective of whether the owner, keeper, or both were negligent in controlling the dog.

We have a statute that provides in relevant part:

“If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner, keeper, or

both, shall be liable for the amount of 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.”

The liability of the owner, keeper or both extends to all the damages to the person proximately

caused by the dog.

A “keeper” of a dog means someone other than the owner who harbors or has possession of the

dog. A “keeper” of a dog is one who exercises control over the dog in a manner similar to that

which would ordinarily be exerted by the owner.

The statute creates two exceptions to this rule of “strict liability.” The first is that the statute

exempts from liability the owner or keeper whose dog does damage to a person who was

committing a “trespass or other tort.” The word “tort” means a wrongful act. “Committing a

trespass or other tort” means more than merely entering on the property or in the area where the

dog was but rather entering to commit an injury or a wrongful act. This means such wrongful

acts committed against the person or property of the owner or keeper or (his/her) family, or

similar wrongful acts, against which the dog, with its characteristic loyalty, would take defensive

or protective action, or those, if committed against the dog, as would likely excite it to use its

natural weapons of defense.

The second exception applies if you find that the plaintiff was “teasing, tormenting, or abusing”

the dog. Teasing, tormenting or abusing a dog means engaging in actions that would naturally

annoy or irritate a dog and provoke it to retaliation. Such actions are those of such a nature as

would naturally antagonize the dog and cause it to attack and which are improper in the sense

that they are without justification. Playing with the dog in a friendly manner does not fall within

the definition of “teasing, tormenting, or abusing” the dog.

So the elements that the plaintiff must prove are:

1. that the defendants were the owners or keepers of a dog;

2. that the dog did, in the language of the statute, “any damage to . . . the body or

property” of the plaintiff; and

3. that neither of the exceptions applies.