Dog-bite action; The dog-bite statute; MCL 287.351; “Licensee” defined; Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship; Trespass to land; Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for defendants-dog owners in plaintiff’s dog-bite action. Plaintiff sued defendants for injuries he sustained to his hand when he reached over defendants’ fence and was bitten by their dog. At the hearing on defendants’ motion for summary disposition, the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claim as abandoned, finding he failed to present any argument in opposition to defendants’ claims. It also dismissed his statutory claim because he was not lawfully on defendants’ property. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that his claim under the dog-bite statute was improperly dismissed because he was lawfully on his niece’s property when he was bitten by defendants’ dog and thus, they were strictly liable for the dog’s actions. “The dog actually bit plaintiff’s hand while—and because—plaintiff had his hand over the fence and protruding into defendants’ backyard. The dog did not jump over the fence and bite plaintiff while he was lawfully in his niece’s backyard; rather, in effect, plaintiff entered into defendants’ backyard and then was bitten.” Moreover, he admitted that he did not have actual permission to place his hand into their backyard and that before he was bitten “the dog had been running up and down the fence line growling and barking at” him. “Considering this behavior, no reasonable juror could infer that plaintiff was given permission to place his hand into defendants’ backyard at that time.” Thus, the dog bite “did not occur while plaintiff was lawfully on private property” but rather “when plaintiff, albeit only his hand, was on defendants’ private property.” There was no genuine issue of material fact that he “was a trespasser on defendants’ private property when he was bitten by their dog.” As such, his "claim under MCL 287.351 was properly dismissed.” Finally, the court noted that he did not challenge the dismissal of his negligence claim on appeal. Affirmed.