This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ds own Cecil, a beagle-collie-rottweiler mixed breed dog that they keep as a family pet. They confined Cecil to the kitchen area, behind a gate, when they were away from home and when visitors came, because he would bark. Twelve-year-old Matthew Collier was a guest of Ds' son, Daniel. He had been to the home on several previous occasions, and on that evening had been upstairs with Daniel and several other children. Matthew came downstairs to use the bathroom, the dog began to bark. D placed Cecil on a leash and, when Matthew emerged from the bathroom, invited him to approach to allow the dog to smell him. Cecil lunged and bit Matthew's face. The dog's attack was unprovoked. Cecil had never previously threatened or bitten anyone. Ds moved for summary judgment to dismiss or a failure to state a cause of action in that Ps did not demonstrate that the dog had vicious propensities or that Ds knew or should have known of the dog's alleged vicious propensities. The court held that Ds' implied knowledge of such propensities could be inferred by Ds' confinement of Cecil in the kitchen. The Appellate Division reversed. This appeal resulted.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.