You asked (1) for a definition of strict liability, (2) how Raised Bill 73 would apply strict liability to police dogs, and (3) how the attorney general's proposed substitute language would change Raised Bill 73.

SUMMARY

Unlike the ordinary rules of negligence, strict liability creates responsibility without consideration of fault. In Connecticut, dog owners are, with limited exceptions, strictly liable when the animal injures another person, whether or not the owner made efforts to prevent the injury or knew the dog was likely to bite.

Raised Bill 73 would expressly exempt police dogs from the strict liability statute when the officer controlling the dog reasonable believes that the person injured was committing a crime. The attorney general testified in support of this bill, but proposed broadening its language to exempt police dogs whenever the dog injures a person while performing its official duties. He also recommended that dogs used by the Corrections Department have a similar exemption.

DOG BITE STATUTE

A dog owner is liable to anyone attacked by his dog, as long as the injured person was not (1) trespassing or committing another other tort or (2) teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog (CGS § 22-357). The owner is automatically liable if the victim is under seven years old (CGS § 22-357).

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AMENDMENT

In his written testimony submitted to the Public Safety Committee on February 23, 2006, the attorney general supported Raised Bill 73, but proposed two amendments.

First, he proposed applying the exemption to any police dog “employed in the course of its official duties”. According to the attorney general, this language was necessary because a police dog's official duties may involve the enforcement of motor vehicle violations, some of which are offenses rather than crimes. But the proposed language appears to be broad enough to cover inadvertent injuries to bystanders or others. Second, he urged expanding the scope of the law to include Corrections Department dogs.

AW:dw