Day on Torts
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.
Looking to Tennessee’s Dog Bite Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413, the Court noted that “in cases where a dog injures a person at the home or on the property of the dog’s owner, the statute clearly retains and codifies the common law requirement that a claimant establish that the dog’s owner knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities.” (internal citation omitted). The defendant dog owner asserted that because the dog had not bitten anyone before, he could not be liable under the statute. He essentially argued that “the only evidence sufficient to establish that he knew or should have known that [the dog] might bite a stranger…would be evidence that the dog had previously bitten someone or almost bitten someone.” The Court of Appeals disagreed.
In response to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff pointed to evidence that the defendant had placed a “beware of dog” sign on his property because there were lots of children at a nearby church. In addition, when the defendant moved from the property, he gave his other dogs to a friend, but he abandoned the dog that bit the plaintiff, thereafter relinquishing the dog to animal control. When questioned about this, the defendant stated that the dog “didn’t know how to be with other people.” Further, the plaintiff introduced a declaration from a woman who bought a goat from the defendant, stating that the dog growled at her aggressively and showed his teeth, and that the defendant saw this incident.
The Court wrote that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was “the type of evidence that the Tennessee Supreme Court has stated would be sufficient to establish that a dog owner knew or had reason to know that the dog had a propensity to bite.” The evidence also called into question the defendant’s credibility. Considering the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court ruled that the plaintiff had created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant owner knew or should have known that the dog had dangerous propensities. Summary judgment was accordingly reversed.
This case is a useful illustration of the kind of evidence that may be relevant in a dog bite case.
This opinion was released six months after oral arguments.