Steagald v. Eason

334 Ga.App. 113

778 S.E.2d 366

STEAGALD et al.

v.EASON et al.

No. A15A0857.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Oct. 8, 2015.

Marc Alan Avidano, McDonough, Andrew James Gebhardt, for Appellant.

Walter B. McClelland, James William Scarbrough, Atlanta, for Appellee.

Opinion

McFADDEN, Judge.

Lori and Gary Steagald appeal the grant of summary judgment to defendants David, Cheryl, and Joshua Eason in this dog-bite case. The Steagalds argue that whether certain behavior put the Easons on notice of the dog's propensity to attack is a question of material fact that requires jury resolution. We hold that the incidents the Steagalds point to were simply evidence of the dog's menacing behavior that did not put the Easons on notice of the propensity to attack. We therefore affirm.

“Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact remain and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, we review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence and all inferences drawn from it in a light favorable to the nonmovant.” Stennette v. Miller,316 Ga.App. 425, 426, 729 S.E.2d 559 (2012)(citation omitted).

So viewed, the evidence showed that the Steagalds and David and Cheryl Eason were neighbors. In 2011, Joshua Eason, the Easons' adult son, moved in with them because he and his wife were divorcing. Two-and-one-half months later, Joshua Eason asked his parents if he could keep his pit bull dog, Rocks, at the house; his former wife told him that she could no longer afford to care for the dog and that if Joshua Eason did not take it, she would take the dog to the pound. Joshua and his then-wife had rescued the dog from the side of the road six months before.

Cheryl Eason told Joshua Eason he could keep Rocks at the house temporarily if he built a pen for the dog inside the fenced back yard. Cheryl Eason wanted to ensure that the dog did not escape the yard, given that she did not know the dog's history. Cheryl Eason had only seen the dog two times before, when she had gone to the home of Joshua Eason and his former wife. On both occasions, the dog was happy to see her. Although they did not know the dog's history prior to its adoption, the Easons had never seen the dog act aggressively. There was no evidence that the dog ever had bitten any person before.

Gary Steagald testified that Cheryl Eason told him that on the first day that Rocks was at her house, he snapped at her when she went to feed him. That same day, Gary Steagald went to see the dog. He approached the dog in the pen and extended his fingers to the dog. The dog growled, barked, and snapped at him.

Six days later, Lori Steagald went over to the Easons' house to borrow some tea bags. Joshua Eason was in the fenced backyard, playing with Rocks, who was on a lead. Joshua Eason walked to the gate, leading Rocks, and opened the latch. Lori Steagald entered the backyard to meet the dog. She extended her hand so that Rocks could smell her. The dog approached her, then jumped up, latched on to her arm, and started biting down. Joshua Eason was very surprised. He began screaming, hitting the dog, and squeezing the dog's testicles, but he could not get the dog to release Lori Steagald. Joshua Eason's father, David Eason, and a cousin came out of the house to help Joshua Eason force the dog to release Lori Steagald's arm. Finally, the men succeeded in getting the dog off of Lori Steagald. As Lori Steagald was exiting the backyard, she slipped and fell, and the dog grabbed her leg. The men got the dog off her leg. Lori Steagald was taken by ambulance to the hospital, where she received stitches. She has undergone treatment with a neurologist and with pain specialists.

Our law as to negligence claims against dog owners provides that a dog owner will be liable for damages only if the owner has knowledge that the dog has the propensity to do the particular act which caused injury to the complaining party. Under this test, the plaintiff must show that the dog had the propensity to do the act that caused the injury and, if so, whether the owner had knowledge of that propensity.... [A] dog's aggressive or menacing behavior alone is not sufficient to place its owner on notice of a propensity to do a

...