Sarah Marshall v. City of Tulsa and Loren Poss

Tulsa, Oklahoma personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff on a dog bite claim.

¶1 In January 2020, Tulsa Animal Welfare ("Tulsa Animal")1 rescued Julian, a neglected male pit bull mix. When Julian was found, he was malnourished, covered in fleas, and did not have food, water, or shelter. Julian's owners were charged with felony animal cruelty. Julian remained in Tulsa Animal's care for two years until he was placed with foster Loren Poss ("Foster"), his caretaker. Prior to fostering Julian, Foster entered into the Tulsa Animal Welfare Foster Agreement ("Foster Agreement") with Tulsa Animal.



¶2 Pursuant to the Foster Agreement, Foster agreed to provide a temporary home for Julian and understood that she was responsible for his care. The Foster Agreement further stated that "any Tulsa Animal Welfare foster animal in [Foster's] care is owned by Tulsa Animal Welfare and can be removed from [Foster's] care at any time by Tulsa Animal Welfare, . . ."2 The Foster Agreement also provided that Foster understood she was not allowed to have others "care for [her] foster animal(s) unless [she] received approval from the Foster Coordinator."3



¶3 During the weekend of March 24-27, 2022, Foster planned to go out of town. In accordance with the Foster Agreement, Foster contacted the Foster Coordinator to inquire what should be done with Julian while she was away. The Foster Coordinator did not respond. Ultimately, Foster hired Plaintiff/Appellant Sarah Marshall ("Marshall"), a Rover.com4 pet-sitter, to house and care for Julian while Foster was out of town for the weekend.5



¶4 When Foster arrived at Marshall's home with Julian, Foster discovered that Julian would be boarded among five other dogs.6 After Foster left, Marshall let Julian off his leash and into the backyard with the five other dogs. When Marshall brought the six dogs inside to place them in their respective crates, Julian allegedly attacked another dog.7 In an attempt to separate the dogs, Marshall grabbed Julian's harness, whereupon Julian turned and bit Marshall's right hand multiple times resulting in several fractures and nerve damage.



* * *



¶11 Oklahoma's dog bite statute is derived from the common law and is liberally construed. Nickell v. Sumner, 1997 OK 101, ¶ 13, 943 P.2d 625, 628. See also 12 O.S. § 2;15 25 O.S. § 29.16 It imposes liability without regard to fault. Id. ¶5, 943 P.2d at 627. The elements of strict liability under 4 O.S. § 42.1 consist of (1) ownership of the dog, (2) lack of provocation, (3) a bite or other injury to the plaintiff by the dog, and (4) the plaintiff's lawful presence at the place where the attack occurs. Hampton By and Through Hampton v. Hammons, 1987 OK 77, ¶ 17, 743 P.2d 1053, 1058; Hood v. Hagler, 1979 OK 163, ¶ 9, 606 P.2d 548, 550. Oklahoma law specifies that "[t]he owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on a place where he has a lawful right to be."17 The question before us is whether, under the facts of this case, Marshall was an owner of Julian for purposes of 4 O.S. § 42.1.



* * *

Motion for summary judgment granted.



We find the analysis in Hampton By and Through Hampton v. Hammons, 1987 OK 77, 743 P.2d 1053 sound and correct when applied to the facts of this case. When 4 O.S. § 42.1 and the Tulsa Municipal Ordinance Title 2, Ch.1 § 100 are construed contemporaneously, Marshall is considered an owner for purposes of the strict liability dog-bite statute, 4 O.S § 42.1.



¶34 The trial court's order granting City's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Marshall's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby affirmed.