The plaintiff was bitten by the defendant's dog, losing part of her thumb, after the dog suffered a seizure and fell into a ditch while the plaintiff was walking it.
The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff was in 'possession' of the dog and thus an 'owner' precluded from claiming compensation under the Dog Owners' Liability Act.
The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on liability.
The court held that novel questions of law can be decided on summary judgment.
The court found the plaintiff was not in 'possession' of the dog as she did not exercise dominion and control similar to an owner.
The court found the defendant strictly liable under the Act, dismissed the negligence claim as the injuries were not reasonably foreseeable, and found no contributory negligence by the plaintiff.
The defendant's motion was dismissed and the plaintiff's cross-motion was granted, with the action to proceed to trial on damages only.
