Kathren v. Olenik

13 Citing cases

  1. Lange v. Minton

    303 Or. 484 (Or. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    "Affirmed. Newport v. Moran, 80 Or. App. 71, 721 P.2d 465, rev den 302 Or. 35, 726 P.2d 934 (1986); Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or. App. 713, 613 P.2d 69 (1980)."

  2. Newport v. Moran

    80 Or. App. 71 (Or. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 4 times

    "(b) he is negligent in failing to prevent the harm." See Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or. App. 713, 719, 613 P.2d 69 (1980). As this court noted in Kathren:

  3. Williams v. Johnson

    781 P.2d 922 (Wyo. 1989)   Cited 6 times
    Providing a mailman who injured himself while attempting to avoid an attack by two dogs had failed to prove that the owner knew of the dogs' dangerous propensities and could, therefore, not recover

    That court found evidence upon which the strict liability propensity case could have been presented to the jury, and then by reference to Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 518, also found a trial basis for a negligence claim. Another rule evidenced in these cases is if the name of the dog is given in the opinion, the decision for defendant dog owner is more likely, e.g., Gideon in Slack v. Villari, 59 Md. App. 462, 476 A.2d 227, cert. denied 301 Md. 177, 482 A.2d 502 (1984); Rowdy in Newport v. Moran, 80 Or. App. 71, 721 P.2d 465 (1986); and Mordecai in Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or. App. 713, 613 P.2d 69 (1980). Compare the female doberman called Tyke in Garson v. Juarique, 99 Cal.App.3d 769, 160 Cal.Rptr. 461 (1979).

  4. Drake v. Dean

    15 Cal.App.4th 915 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 24 times
    Determining that evidence of pit bulls historically being bred for aggressiveness may be considered by jury to consider dangerousness of individual pit bull

    In such cases the owner was only liable if, having knowledge of the particular propensities which created a foreseeable risk of harm, he failed to exercise reasonable care in control of the animal." ( Williams v. Johnson, supra, 781 P.2d at p. 923, citing Rest.2d, § 518; Kathren v. Olenik (1980) 46 Or. App. 713 [ 613 P.2d 69, 73], citing Rest.2d, § 518.) (11) Defendants rely on Hillman v. Garcia-Ruby, supra, 44 Cal.2d 625, for the proposition that there can be no liability based on negligence for injury caused by a domestic animal unless the animal has dangerous propensities of which the owner knows or should have known.

  5. Dolezal v. Carbrey

    161 Ariz. 365 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    Noting distinction between §§ 509 and 518 of Restatement

    Section 518 of the Restatement has also been applied in dog bite cases. In Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or. App. 713, 719, 613 P.2d 69, 73 (1980), the court said that no duty to control or confine the animal is imposed on the owner absent "knowledge or a basis for knowledge" that the animal will behave in a potentially injurious manner. The court said that the defendants were not charged with a general knowledge that dogs will bite human beings.

  6. Medlyn v. Armstrong

    621 P.2d 81 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    An owner may be found negligent for a failure to control or confine the animal. Westberry v. Blackwell, 282 Or. 129, 133, 577 P.2d 75 (1978); Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or. App. 713, 719, 613 P.2d 69 (1980). Such negligence "is based on a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury by the animal."

  7. Mercer v. Parker

    Case No. 6:19-cv-00821-AA (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2020)

    Under Oregon law, negligent failure to confine or control a dog "is based on a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury by" the dog and "must be analyzed in terms of the knowledge on the part of the owner that the dog will cause the injury actually incurred by plaintiff if it is not controlled or confined." Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or. App. 713, 719 (1980). A plaintiff's status as an invitee under premises liability law has no bearing on a defendant's liability for failure to restrain a dog.

  8. Lollar v. Poe

    622 So. 2d 902 (Ala. 1993)   Cited 25 times

    1978); Hughes v. W S Constr. Co., 196 So.2d 339 (Miss. 1967) (recognizing rule); Beshore v. Gretzinger, 641 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App. 1982); Ambrogini v. Todd, 197 Mont. 111, 642 P.2d 1013 (1982); Jensen v. Nielson, 91 Nev. 412, 537 P.2d 321 (1975); Mitchell v. Ridgway, 77 N.M. 249, 421 P.2d 778 (1966); Kelly v. Willis, 238 N.C. 637, 78 S.E.2d 711 (1953); Burnett v. Rice, 39 Ohio St.3d 44, 529 N.E.2d 203 (1988); Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or. App. 713, 613 P.2d 69, 75 (1980); Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or. 645, 642 P.2d 651 (1982); Reed v. Clark, 277 S.C. 310, 286 S.E.2d 384 (1982); Higgins v. Vinson, 549 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn.App. 1976); Beck v. Sheppard, 566 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1978); Rhiness v. Dansie, 24 Utah 2d 375, 472 P.2d 428 (1970); Rice v. Turner, 191 Va. 601, 62 S.E.2d 24 (1950); Dawson v. Woodson, 180 W. Va. 307, 376 S.E.2d 321 (1988); Hinkle v. Siltamaki, 361 P.2d 37 (Wyo. 1961). The rules regarding negligence in such situations are the same as in ordinary negligence cases.

  9. King v. Breen

    560 So. 2d 186 (Ala. 1990)   Cited 15 times
    In King v. Breen, 560 So.2d 186 (Ala. 1990), and Casey v. Oliver, 577 So.2d 453 (Ala. 1991), this Court distinguished Orr and held that premises liability standards applied.

    Westberry, 282 Or. at 133, 577 P.2d at 76-77. In Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or. App. 713, 613 P.2d 69 (1980), the court observed: "We do not read the opinion in Westberry as imposing a duty on a dog owner to control or confine the animal absent knowledge or a basis for knowledge by the owner that the dog will behave in a potentially injurious manner.

  10. Zanten v. Zanten

    190 Or. App. 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff's claim is governed by the latter principle. We explained in Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or. App. 713, 719, 613 P.2d 69 (1980), how the principle works: "Negligence, in terms of an omission to confine or control an animal, is based on a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury by the animal.