Court Opinion

ID: 9599890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:22:05.812457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:35.225412
License: Public Domain

*329Judge BECTON
dissenting.
This Court will one day be asked to decide a “worst-scenario” dog-bite case with particularly egregious facts impelling the submission of a punitive damage issue to the jury. That case is not before us today, and I therefore dissent. First, in my view, “the wrong or fault ... is [not] the keeping of a dangerous animal,” ante p. 327; rather, it is in allowing the dog to escape and bite someone. Second, considering the facts of this case, I believe the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the punitive damages issue since the forecast of evidence only showed that defendant kept a dog whose vicious propensities were known to him. That forecast of evidence indicates negligence, nothing more; it constitutes the elements of the tort of keeping a vicious dog. Punitive damages are not awarded for mere ordinary negligence.