Slack V Villari Summary

In Maryland, Mrs. Allison cannot allege strict liability for damages incurred to her daughter by the Huffs’ boxer dog, Stella. To allege strict liability, an owner must take responsibility for the actions of their dog but only if the owner knew of the dog’s propensity to harm mankind. See Slack v. Villari, 476 A.2d 227, 232 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984). The issue pertains to whether or not the Huffs knew about Stella’s potential to attack mankind. If Mr. and Mrs. Huff knew of Stella’s dangerous behavior, Mrs. Allison can allege for damages and successfully win in court. However, it is unlikely. Although Stella bit Danielle Allison, the evidence indicates that the Huffs had no prior knowledge to reasonably foresee Stella’s attack. Their knowledge

Hamilton, 219 A.2d at 787. First, the owner’s knowledge primarily relies on past violent or aggressive occurrences or behavior, such as an attack or mauling. See id. The knowledge can also be inferred from the purpose of the dog’s presence in the household. Benton, 489 A.2d at 551. Second, their treatment of the dog portrays the intended purpose; such as which people are able to approach the dog, and the amount of time and opportunities that the dog can freely wander without supervision. Finally, the owners may infer if the dog is dangerous based on the dog’s training. Slack, 476 A.2d at 234. If the owners trained the dog, they may believe that the dog’s obedience deters future attacks, as the owners have a sense of control over the dog. Therefore, the owners believe that the dog cannot harm another person because of their control. Overall, the elements in dispute are whether the Huffs knew of Stella’s vicious propensities based on past violent occurrences with mankind, the purpose of Stella as a family pet, and the Huffs trust in their control over

In Hamilton, three dogs near-fatally attacked nine-year-old Donald Smith. Hamilton v. Smith, 219 A.2d 783, 784 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996). The Smiths were tenants of the Hamiltons’ property, and Mr. Hamilton would leave his dogs unchained as to guard the property during the nights. Id. The Hamilton’s knew about the dogs’ violent behavior; they attacked and mauled visitors to the property in past occassions. See id. However, they continued to allow the dogs to guard the property unsupervised. Id. at 785. The previous attacks occurred as soon as five days before the incident with Donald. See id. at 784, 785. These incidents included an attack and mauling on a motorist, whom Hamilton took to the hospital himself, Hamilton, 219 A.2d at 785, as well as an attack on an employee of the Hamiltons, Id. at 786. Mr. Smith, Donald’s father, previously worked for the Hamilton’s as well, and testified that the Hamilton’s chained up one of the dogs as the result of the dog lunging at any person who approached, other than the Hamiltons. Id. at 785. The court held that the owners had knowledge of the dogs’ violent behavior, yet continued to keep the dogs. Id. at 787-88. It reasoned that the multiple attacks provided clear and convincing evidence that the dogs