McGrellis v. Bromwell

Summary

The Court affirmed judgment as a matter of law for the defendants because the evidence did not establish that they owed the plaintiff a duty to prevent their dog from leaving the house and running on their property. The Court also rejected the plaintiff's unpreserved jury-polling and emotional-distress-instruction claims under plain-error review and held that she waived her statutory strict-liability claim. The Court concluded that the dog's conduct was not reasonably foreseeable as a cause of a passerby being startled and falling.