1. STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. 3921
Paul and Sally WHITE, on behalf of Adam WHITE,
Plaintiff
v. MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Sharon STONE,
Defendant
I. Questions Presented
1) Was Sharon the owner of Bubbles at the time of the injuries?
2) Did Adam White provoke Bubbles, making Sharon not liable?
3) Would Bubbles be considered a “dangerous dog”?
II. Facts
Sharon Stone loved animals and when asked by her neighbor to “babysit” his friendly
100-pound Siberian husky, Bubbles, while out of town for a week, she quickly agreed. Her
neighbor had a fenced in yard for Bubbles so he had room to run and play. While her Neighbor –
Noah Blake-was out of town, Sharon moved into the house and while she unpacking let Bubbles
outside to play. When she heard a scream she quickly ran outside to find out what had happen.
When arriving outside she saw a young boy with an apparent dog bite on his arm and a large
stick in his hand. Bubbles was standing beside him growling. Sharon immediately called 911 for
medical help for the boy. Later the 10-year-old boy, Adam, stated that he was leaning over the
fence teasing Bubbles with the stick. Bubbles, being a playful dog, grabbed the stick,
accidentally pulled the boy over the fence and bit him while trying to take the stick away from
him.
III. Argument
Sharon was the temporary owner of Bubbles at the time of the injuries, which means that she
was only watching him for a short time so she should not be held liable for the injuries suffered
by Adam White, due to the fact that Adam was only bit because he foolishly provoked Bubbles
with a stick and most children of that age know that when you tease a dog with a stick they will
try to grab it eventually. Sharon was only being a generous neighbor for watching Bubbles for
that week, and she should not be held liable for actions that could have been prevented. Adam
even said in his statement that he was teasing Bubbles with a stick while leaning over the fence,

2. and that the dog grabbed the stick and accidentally pulled him over the fence and bit his arm
while trying to grab the stick from Adam’s hand.
A. At the time of the injuries, Sharon was the owner of Bubbles.
According to Minn. Stat. Ann. § 347.22 (2014), “ a person keeping a dog, included in the
definition of an owner of the animal owner liability statute, is a person who either with or
without owner’s permission undertakes to manage, control or care for is as dog owners in general
are accustomed to do.” In this case, Sharon, being a nice neighbor, said that she would watch
Bubbles while his actual owner was out of town. Since she was being such a nice person and
watching Bubbles at the time of the injuries she would be considered the owner. Since she did
move into her neighbors’ house while he was out of town she was just watching him for the time
that his owner was away, and was making sure he was taken care of properly.
In Verret v. Silver, 244 N.W.2d 147 (1976), Jerry Silver had a roommate with a dog who
bit a 5-year-old boy from the neighborhood, he was not the legal owner nor was he providing
anything for the dog, in fact the actual owner of the dog was the one providing all the food and
water they even kept the dog in their room most of the time. The holding in this case was that he
was not harboring or keeping the dog in any way, due to the fact that he was not providing or
taking care of the dog. Sharon was taking care of Bubbles at the time so she was only
temporarily “keeping” Bubbles. Even though she did not buy the food or pay for the water bill
for the property she took responsibility of taking care of the dog which would make her the
temporary owner of Bubbles.
B. Adam White did provoke Bubbles, so Sharon is not liable.
In Bailey v. Morris, 323 N.W.2d 725 (1982), the court held that when provocation exists
before a dog bite occurs, the owner is not held liable because the dog was provoked and would
not have bitten the person otherwise. In Bailey, the court stated “The evidence supports a finding
that the dog made no move to bite appellant until appellant stepped forward and stretched out her
hand.” This means that the bite would not have happened if the appellant would not have reached
out her hand to pet the dog. Adam clearly stated that he was teasing Bubbles with the stick while
leaning over the fence then Bubbles, as a result, grabbed the stick, biting him in the process. If
Adam was not doing this he would not have been bit. Adam knew what he was doing because in
his statement he said that he was teasing Bubbles with the stick while leaning over the fence.
When he started to tease Bubbles with the stick any reasonably prudent 10-year-old would have
known that when teasing a dog with a stick the dog will try to grab the stick eventually.
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 347.22 (2014), states that if a dog attacks or injures any person,
without provocation, who is peacefully on the property and is legally allowed to be there, the
owner would be held liable for any injuries caused by the dog. Adam was not told that he was
allowed to be on the property and he was provoking Bubbles with the stick while leaning over
the fence. Bubbles was just acting as any playful dog would, he was just trying to play with the
stick, and since Adam would not give Bubbles the stick he grabbed it and accidentally bit Adam.
C. Bubbles would not be considered a “dangerous dog”, so Sharon is not liable.
According to Minn. Stat. Ann § 347.50 (2014), a dangerous dog is any dog that, when
unprovoked, inflicts harm to a human on public or private property, kills a domestic animal
without being provoked on property that does not belong to the owner, or a dog that aggressively
bites or endangers the safety of humans or other animals. Bubbles was only trying to play with
the stick, the only reason that he bit Adam was because he was trying to get the stick from him.
He would not be considered a “dangerous dog” because of that reason. He bit Adam because

3. Adam was being a foolish kid and teasing him with the stick. Bubbles also has no history of
biting anyone.
IV. Conclusion
Sharon should not be held liable because Adam was provoking Bubbles and if he was not
doing so the injuries never would have occurred. Also Sharon was only the temporary owner of
Bubbles. Bubbles was only acting as any playful dog would and Sharon should not be held liable
for Adam’s foolish behavior.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kaylie Cassity