02 Nov Hotel Not Responsible For Dog Bite

The Plaintiff in Parris v. Rogers, 2019 BCSC 1828, received an unfortunate bite on the face from a dog owned by the Defendant Rogers. The incident took place on the premises of the Defendant Hotel (the “Hotel”).

Rogers worked for the Hotel for almost three years but that relationship ended a month before the dog bite. Prior to the end of his employment, Rogers brought his dog on-site on occasion, without incident.

The Hotel asked to have the issue of its liability for the dog bite severed from the issues of quantum and Rogers’ liability, and decided on a summary trial basis.  The court agreed that there were compelling reasons to do so.

The test for liability is negligence and, in particular, foreseeability. In this case, there were two issues for the court to decide. First, did the Hotel know or should it have known that Rogers’ dog was likely to create a risk of injury to third parties? If the answer to the first inquiry was “yes”, the court would then proceed to the second inquiry: Did the Hotel fail to take reasonable care to prevent such injury?

The court concluded that it was not foreseeable to the Hotel that Rogers’ dog would cause the type of harm it did. The Hotel, based on its knowledge of the dog, had no reason to believe that the dog would act in the manner in which it did. The dog appeared to be friendly until it bit the Plaintiff. In those circumstances, it could not be said that it was negligent for the Hotel to have the dog on their premises. An occupier cannot be liable for a sudden act of a violent nature which is altogether contrary to the usual habits of the dog in question either under the common law or the Occupiers Liability Act.

It was not necessary for the court to proceed to the second inquiry and decide whether the Hotel failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such injury.  The case against the Hotel was dismissed.