The plaintiff in this case attempted to collect $1,452 from the town for damages done to his porch by a stray dog. He argued, and the district court agreed, that because the town adopted the Dog Control Law and had failed to take any action to remove the stray dog, the town was liable to the property owner for damages done by the dog. The Court disagreed and reversed the district court’s finding of liability against the town.
Generally, RSA chapter 466 addresses dog owner responsibilities, including licensing and vaccinating. It also expressly imposes liability upon municipalities for damage caused by a dog to other animals where adequate recovery is unavailable from either the owner of the dog or through insurance. The Court pointed out that the statute does not extend this liability to property damage resulting from alleged violations of the Dog Control Law.
The Court next turned to whether the town could be held liable under the theory of common law negligence. In order for the town to be liable, the plaintiff must allege and prove the town breached a duty of care and that this breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. In short, are the property owner’s interests (that is, not having a stray dog damage his home) entitled to legal protection from the town’s conduct (that is, not removing the stray dog from the property) against the invasion that has occurred? The Court reasoned that the existence of a duty depends upon what risks, if any, are reasonably foreseeable under the particular circumstances. Noting that the resolution of this question of duty and legal causality ultimately depends upon consideration of competing policy reasons for and against the recognition a duty, the Court declined to “impose a legal duty upon the town to prevent a stray dog from wandering onto the plaintiff’s property and chewing on his dwelling.” The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would impermissibly make the town a guarantor of public peace, safety and welfare.