Dog Catcher Can Sue Owner For Dog Bite

July 2, 2008

The Court of Appeals published Fetchko v. Morgan and Edmonds, a case resulting from a dog named bandit.  Bandit bit a small child and animal control was called.  The next day Fetchko went to pick up the dog.  On the way he met Kay Morgan, the mother of Edmonds, the dog’s owner.  Ms. Morgan was walking towards Fetchko’s truck with one dog on a leash and bandit running free.  Morgan told Fetchko that the dog, bandit, was the one who attacked the child earlier.  Fetchko, who was not at the address yet, apparently didn’t understand what Morgan meant.  He exited his truck and was attacked by bandit. He sued Morgan and the dog’s owner Edmonds.

The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment against Fetchko, claiming Fetchko assumed the risk of being bitten by dogs in his position as an animal control officer.  Fetchko appealed, claiming that the court erred in finding he assumed the risk, Morgan cross-appealed claiming she was not an owner of the dog, and Edmonds cross-appealed claiming the firefighters rule should be extended to this case to protect her from liabiity.

First, the Court of Appeals found that Morgan qualified as the owner of the dog under the statutory definition.  Second, the case relied upon by the circuit court that Fetchko assumed the risk was distinguishable from the present facts.  The case, Jordan v. Lusby, dealt with a dog groomer who had taken custody of the dog when she was bitten.  Here there was no such custody taken.  Finally, the court did not extend the firefighters rule finding that even if the firefighter’s rule applied Fetchko never made it to the location where the dog was to engage in the “specific risk” of taking custody of the dog, which is a requirement.  The court reversed the summary judgment.

Editor’s Comment:

Am I the only one who sees the irony in allowing an animal control officer, whose job it is to take custody of dangerous animals, to recover for injuries sustained while in the performance of that duty, merely because he encountered the dog on the street and not at the location listed on the report?  It’s slightly absurd to think that Fetchko did not know the dog he was encountering was dangerous, after Morgan told him specifically “that the unleashed dog was the dog that had bitten her grandchild the previous evening.”  Fetchko’s claims he did not know it was the dog he was to retrieve are questionable and mostly irrelevant since he was on notice that the dog was dangerous, yet he failed to take precautions to protect himself.  (At this time bandit is unleashed and Fetchko knows from Morgan that the dog bit a small child).

Furthermore, the reliance by the court on Jordan is likewise misplaced.  Jordan dealt with the issue of ownership, not risk.  Because the dog groomer had taken custody of the dog, she was found to meet the statutory definition of “owner.”  Jordan held that “owners” couldn’t recover for injuries sustained by other “owner’s” dogs.  Here Fetchko assumed the risk of being bitten because he knew the dog to be dangerous, because Morgan told him so.  Yet, he chose to exit his truck and encounter the dog anyway.

I can’t wait to see people’s reactions when this case hits the papers.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: