Negligence: Dog bite case goes to jury

Where there were disputed facts over whether the dog’s owner exercised reasonable vigilance and control when his German Shepherd bit another shopper, his motion for summary judgment was denied.

Background

Rosa Tipold sued Tony and Stephanie Ross after the Rosses’ German Shepherd, Mack, bit—and seriously injured—her left hand and wrist on April 30, 2022, while Ms. Tipold was shopping at a Rural King store in Henry County, Virginia. At the time Mack bit her, Ms. Tipold was sitting in a wheelchair that her daughter was pushing around the store. The Rosses moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ms. Tipold failed to present any evidence that they were negligent in handling Mack prior to his sudden and unexpected attack on her.

Analysis

Defendants correctly point out that there is no evidence that Mack had ever acted violently or aggressively toward another person prior to the Rural King incident, and thus, that they are not charged with upholding a heightened standard of care toward other patrons of Rural King. Defendants further contend that because it was not reasonably foreseeable that Mack would react aggressively, they exercised a reasonable degree of care in handling their dog on his leash while inside the store.

In making this argument, defendants imply the requisite standard of care that governed their conduct, vis-à-vis Mack, inside this store. Reasonable prudence under these circumstances undoubtedly required defendants to remain attentive to their surroundings, including to the presence and relative location of other shoppers, and to maintain adequate control of their dog.

Indeed, Mr. Ross conceded as much at his own deposition when he cited trainer Michael Craig’s admonition about watching for potential triggers of aggressive behavior, and later, when Mr. Ross described, in some detail, how he kept a tight hold on Mack’s leash handle, severely restricting the dog’s movements.

But the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, indicates that Mr. Ross may have failed in his duty to exercise reasonable vigilance and control. The Rosses engaged in conversation with other store patrons for approximately 20 minutes with Mack by their side. Throughout this conversation, Mr. Ross had his back turned to the busy shopping aisles behind him and, by his own admissions, was generally oblivious to the movement of other patrons—i.e., potential triggers of an aggressive reaction by his (or potentially any) dog. A reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that Mr. Ross, who elected to bring his dog into a busy retail environment, fell short of his legal duty to keep a watchful eye on his surroundings.

Moreover, Ms. Tipold testified that her wheelchair was approximately four feet away from the Rosses—and Mack—when he attacked her. Ms. Tipold’s estimate, which is generally corroborated by her daughter, stands in marked contrast to Mr. Ross’ testimony about keeping a tight hold on Mack’s leash, and a reasonable jury, weighing this conflict and making attendant credibility determinations, could justifiably conclude that Mr. Ross was not holding the leash in the manner he described, and thus, that he failed to maintain proper control of his dog under the circumstances.

At bottom, there is sufficient evidence in the record that precludes this court from determining, as a matter of law, that Tony Ross exercised reasonable care in handling Mack prior to the attack at issue. But since it is undisputed that Mr. Ross, rather than his wife, assumed sole responsibility for controlling Mack inside the store, the court will grant Stephanie Ross’s motion and dismiss her from this action.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted in part, denied in part.

Tipold v. Ross, Case No. 4:24-cv-00022, Apr. 29, 2025. WDVA at Danville (Cullen). VLW 025-3-180. 11 pp.