Articles Posted in Dog Bites and Attacks

Where the plaintiffs had no evidence to refute the defendant dog owner’s sworn statement that they had no way to know of their dog’s dangerous propensities, summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed.

In A.M. by Amanda M. v. Masek, No. W2024-01412-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2025), the plaintiffs visited the defendants’ home to celebrate Christmas. The plaintiffs’ minor son stayed the night, and the next morning he went into the defendants’ back yard with the defendants’ dogs. The defendants had not left the child alone with the dogs before and intended to join him in the yard soon. Within three minutes, one of the dogs attacked the boy.

The plaintiffs filed this suit, and the defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the filings of the parties, finding that the plaintiffs did not prove an essential element of their claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Where a dog had previously growled at a stranger and the owner had stated the dog did not know how to be around other people, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant owner knew about the dog’s dangerous propensities before it bit the plaintiff.

In Munoz v. Sepulveda, No. M2024-01002-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2025), the plaintiff visited the defendant’s property to purchase a lamb. When the plaintiff arrived, she saw two dogs in a fenced enclosure. She approached the enclosure to look at the dogs, and one of the dogs bit her.

The plaintiff filed this action against the defendant, and the defendant moved for summary judgment, pointing to his testimony that the dog had never bitten anyone before. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the plaintiff had shown a genuine issue of material fact.

A Tennessee dog bite victim who cannot make a successful claim under the Tennessee Dog Bit Statute may not be precluded from pursuing a common law negligence claim.

In Hudson v. Gravette, No. M2022-01787-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2025), the plaintiff was an employee at a dog boarding kennel. The defendants owned two English bulldogs that were often boarded at the kennel. In fact, between May 2018 and February 2019, the dogs were at the kennel almost 50% of the time.

On the day of the incident, the plaintiff was the first employee to arrive at the kennel, and she let all the dogs out in groups. When she released the defendants’ dogs, one began nipping at her ankle, causing her to fall. Both dogs then attacked her for five to ten minutes. The plaintiff required emergency surgery, and she suffered from continued painful nerve damage and post-traumatic stress.

A dog park located within an apartment complex being used by residents of the complex was considered to fall within the residential exception of the Tennessee dog bite statute, so plaintiff, who was bitten at her apartment complex’s dog park, had to show that the dog’s owner knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities to establish liability.

In Cruise v. Byrd, No. M2022-01578-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2023), plaintiff lived at an apartment complex which included a dog park which was open to residents only. While at the dog park, plaintiff’s dog was attacked by defendant’s dog, and plaintiff was bitten by defendant’s dog when she intervened. Defendant was also a resident at the apartment complex.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for negligence and negligence per se. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the dog bite occurred on residential property rather than public property and that defendant had no notice of the dog’s dangerous propensities. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the dog park was not a public place, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Where a landlord had told a tenant to immediately remove a pit bull who had bitten someone, had no notice that the pit bull had returned, and had given the tenant 30-day notice of eviction after the first biting incident, the landlord did not breach any duty owed to the guest of the tenant who was subsequently bitten by the pit bull after the tenant allowed it to return to the property.

In Harrill v. PI Tennessee, LLC, No. M2021-00424-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1222318 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 26, 2022), defendant landlord owned and operated a mobile home park, and Gina Branch leased one of the mobile homes. The lease agreement prohibited Branch from keeping a pit bull or other dog over thirty pounds at the property. From March 2015 to February 2016, Branch’s son lived with Branch and kept his pit bull in the home. In March 2016, defendant sent Branch a letter stating that the pit bull was not allowed and that if the pit bull returned to the property, she would be evicted without notice.

Almost two years later, in January 2018, Branch’s son and his girlfriend were visiting the property and brought the pit bull, and during the visit the pit bull bit the girlfriend. Defendant learned of this attack on January 10, 2018 and immediately ordered Branch to have the dog removed from the property. Defendant also served Branch with a 30-day eviction notice. After that time, defendant did not see the dog or receive any reports of the dog being at the property. On January 31, Branch allowed the dog to return and kept him inside. Plaintiff came to the property to help Branch pack and move, and while plaintiff was inside the home, the dog bit her.

Continue reading