Therefore, the only issue at trial was a jury determination as to the amount of damages to award, if any. The decision whether to admit or exclude evidence rests with the district court and its ruling will not be disturbed absent indicia of an erroneous view of the law or abuse of discretion. The Minnesota dog bite statute, Minn. Stat. When its elements are established, this statute imposes absolute liability upon the dog owner. Past good behavior of the dog is also immaterial.
Provocation is the dog owner's defense to liability.
But whether the dog was provoked is an issue of fact. Here, Witte argues that he should have been able to introduce evidence of Lien's past conduct towards the dog, to create a jury question. Rather the question is whether it was proper for the district court to exclude evidence of Lien's past provocation as too remote in time and for lack of proper foundation. Witte's claim of error for granting the motion in limine is an evidentiary issue, which the district court has considerable latitude and discretion to decide. See Benson v. Northern Gopher Enters.