Court rules man can be sued for attack by daughter's dogs

WISCONSIN -- An Oshkosh woman can sue a man for injuries caused by his adult daughter’s dogs, a divided state appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The District II Court of Appeals concluded that Julie Augsburger’s injury lawsuit against George Kontos, of Butte des Morts can proceed to trial in November.

The appeals court ruling found that, as the owner of the property, Kontos could be sued for the dog attack even though he did not live there.

Kontos’ daughter, Janet Veith, lived rent-free with her husband and six dogs, at a property in Larsen that Kontos owned as his eventual retirement residence. Augsburger, a long-time friend of Veith, claims she was “viciously attacked by at least four dogs” during a visit to the property in June 2008.

According to a brief filed by Augsburger’s attorney, When Augsburger walked through the backyard the dogs ran out of the house barking at her.

The dogs knocked Augsburger to the ground, tore off her pants and bit her at least 11 times causing severe lacerations to both legs. Augsburger thought she was going to die, the brief states.

The majority appeals opinion found that Kontos was the “statutory owner” of the dogs under a clarified definition of “harboring” an animal.

Even though Kontos did not own nor keep the dogs, he gave the Veiths’ dogs shelter for more than one year prior to the mauling, thus harboring them, according the opinion.

“Indeed, had the legislature limited the statutory definition of ‘owner’ to only owners and keepers of dogs, we would have no difficulty holding for Kontos,” Judge Mark Gundrum wrote in the 13-page opinion. “But the legislature did not so limit the statute. In choosing to include “harbor[ers]” in the definition of owners, the legislature broadened the pool of potentially liable persons beyond just those who own or keep offending dogs.”

In his dissent, Judge Paul Reilly criticized the majority’s “hypertechnical application of the law,” for getting in the way of a common sense look at the facts.

Reilly noted that Kontos did not like the dogs and the fact that he owned property where the dogs resided “does not make him (their) statutory ‘owner’.”

A lawsuit is also proceeding against the Veiths for Augsburger’s injuries, said her attorney, Joseph Troy, but he wanted to join all responsible parties in the case.

“I’m not surprised by the ruling. It follows state statutes that say persons that harbor a dog are its statutory owner,” he said.

A call to Kontos’ attorney, Jarrod Papendorf, wasn’t returned by deadline.

Papendorf had appealed a judge’s refusal to dismiss the case on grounds Kontos wasn’t the dogs’ owner.

The case will be heard in Fond du Lac County Circuit Judge Gary Sharpe because Kontos had been a bailiff in Winnebago County.

(The Northwestern - Aug. 29, 2013)