Slack V. Dorothy Villari Case Study

Case Name & Citation

Roy A. SLACK, et ux. V. Dorothy VILLARI, et vir.; 59 Md.App. 462 Court of Special

Appeals of Maryland

2. Facts

Mr. and Mrs. Villari were talking a walk, when the dog from Mrs. Slack’s house jumped

at her. *At no time was the dog restrained by a leash. Mrs. Villari nearly fell back, but

caught herself by grabbing on to her husband. *She sustained an injury in her lower back,

by did not fall. The dog did not bite Mr. or Mrs. Villari and did not touch either party.

*The Villaris had no previous record of the dog biting, growling or snapping at any

human before this incident. *Mrs. Slack, the dog owner, let the dog out into the front yard

with out knowledge of people walking outside. *She did acknowledge that “people are

normally afraid of large dogs and since he was a Doberman it was just the kind of ting
you would just avoid. *Also in a conversation with Mrs. Villari, Mrs. Slack testified that
they normally kept Gideon in the house or fenced in the backyard.

*He did not bark at

people.

3. Procedural History

Trial court was in favor for the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed

4. Plaintiff’s Theory of the Case

a. The dog was aggressive towards other dogs, which shows mischief.

b. The breed, Doberman pincher, of the dog gives way to the violent nature of the dog.

2

c. The fact the owner had the dog enclosed in the house or backyard during the day meant

that the dog was vivacious.

5. Defendant’s Theory of the Case

The defendant claimed that the dog had no previous incidences to prove that they had

knowledge of his ability to commit this act against the Villaris.

6. Issue

Whether Mrs. Slack had prior knowledge of the dog’s behavior based on particular

mischief, the breed type, and based on the enclosure law.

7. Overall Rule

The dog owner must have prior knowledge of the propensity of the dog to be violent.

8. Subrules

a. Owner will not be deemed to have prior knowledge because of the breed of the dog.

b. The action that took place needs to be in accordance to the particular mischief that took

place in the case.

c. Owner is not presumed to have knowledge because of enclosure of the dog if the law

requires it.

9.

Holding
Appellees did not prove that Appellants knew or in exercise of reasonable care should
have known that, the dog “Gideon” had a propensity to so the acts which that caused
injury
10. Reasoning
a. There was no prior record of Gideon growling, biting, or previously attacking other
people.

3

b. The fact that other Doberman pinchers have acted in a violent manner does not
wrangle Gideon into the category of having a violent nature, based on a single incident.
c. The is no evidence that tarnished Gideon’s character or establishes notice of his
propensity to engage in the injury-causing act.