Trap:
Standing to Object.  You have to be more than a concerned father to intervene in an estate matter.  This was the ruling in Estate of Linda Jeanne Mealey, Decedent, A04-1498, (Minn. App. 2005). A decedent’s father,  who was not a beneficiary under the decedent’s will, did not have “standing” to object to the distribution of the decedent’s estate because he was not an “interested party” as defined under Minn. Stat. §524.1-201.  This was true even though the son’s will called for distribution to a number of charities.  The appellate court said that standing requires a stake in the controversy such as a personal or property right.  The father’s claim that he was an aggrieved party because he was concerned for the charities named in his son’s will was not persuasive. 

 

Trap:
Dog Bites. Owners of dogs that bite or otherwise injure other persons are subject to strict liability in Minnesota and about 30 other states.  Under Minn. Stat. §347.22, “any” owner of a dog who bites or injures another is liable without regard to fault.  There are a few defenses, such as trespass or provocation, but they are hard to establish.  But other defenses not imbedded in the statute may bar liability, notwithstanding the broad language of the law.  In a pair of recent rulings, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the strict liability statute did not apply in cases brought by dog bite claimants.  In Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department, 700 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. App. 2005), the appellate court held that a woman who was bitten by a dog used by law enforcement personnel, while she was a passive bystander to the arrest of her husband, could not pursue a claim under the strict liability statute.  Although the appellate court previously ruled the statute did not apply, 680 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. App. 2004), the Supreme Court reversed that decision, because the “plain language” of the statute extends to law enforcement dogs.  691 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 2005).  Upon remand, the appellate court ruled that the police department and its municipality were immune from liability because the officers exercised this judgment during the course and scope of their duties without malice or ill will.  Thus, they were entitled to discretionary immunity, which extends to the city under the doctrine of vicarious official immunity.A dog groomer bitten on the face by a German Shepard she was attending also was barred from pursuing a strict liability claim in Carlson v. Friday, 694 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. App. 2005).  The appellate court, affirming the decision of the Hennepin Country District Court, reasoned that the groomer was a “secondary” owner within the meaning of the statute.  Therefore, she could not sue the couple that owned the dog for injuries incurred while she possessed or harbored the canine.  These cases reflect that dog owners and their insurers may be able to fend off liability, notwithstanding the expansive language of the strict liability statute.  If the statute does not apply, claimants may, in the alternative, assert common law negligence claims, although they are harder to establish.  A negligence action requires that the owner, however, should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensity, usually by showing a prior bite or other attack by the animal as a predicate for a common law claim.