Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-327 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this chapter:

(1) “Animal” means any brute creature, including, but not limited to, dogs, cats, monkeys, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, birds and reptiles;

(2) “Chief Animal Control Officer”, “Assistant Chief Animal Control Officer” and “animal control officer” mean, respectively, the Chief State Animal Control Officer, the Assistant Chief State Animal Control Officer and a state animal control officer appointed under section 22-328;

(3) “Commercial kennel” means a place maintained for boarding or grooming dogs or cats, and includes, but is not limited to, any veterinary hospital which boards or grooms dogs or cats for nonmedical purposes;

(4) “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of Agriculture;

(5) “Grooming facility” means any place, including any vehicle or trailer, that is maintained as a business where dogs are groomed;

(6) “Keeper” means any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog;

(7) “Kennel” means one pack or collection of dogs which are kept under one ownership at a single location and are bred for show, sport or sale;

(8) “Municipal animal control officer” means any such officer appointed under the provisions of section 22-331;

(9) “Pet shop” means any place at which animals not born and raised on the premises are kept for the purpose of sale to the public;

(10) “Poultry” has the same meaning as provided in section 22-326s;

(11) “Training facility” means any place that is maintained as a business where dogs are trained;

(12) “Service animal” has the same meaning as provided in 28 CFR 35.104 and includes any animal in training to become a service animal.

(1949 Rev., S. 3374; 1949, S. 709b; 1953, S. 1812d; 1959, P.A. 637, S. 2; 1961, P.A. 67; 1963, P.A. 613, S. 1; 1969, P.A. 81, S. 1; 423, S. 1; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 446, 448; 1972, P.A. 180, S. 1; P.A. 77-314, S. 1; P.A. 82-91, S. 14, 38; P.A. 91-46, S. 10, 12; 91-59, S. 1; P.A. 93-435, S. 29, 95; P.A. 98-12, S. 3, 22; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146(e); P.A. 04-189, S. 1; P.A. 19-156, S. 1; P.A. 21-90, S. 1, 2; P.A. 24-69, S. 1.)

History: 1959 act replaced commissioner of agriculture with commissioner of agriculture, conservation and natural resources; 1961 act replaced commissioner of agriculture, conservation and natural resources with commissioner of agriculture and natural resources; 1963 act defined “regional warden” and “pet shop”; 1969 acts replaced definitions re wardens with definitions re canine control officers, clarified definitions of “commercial kennel” and “pet shop” and defined “grooming facility”; 1971 act replaced commissioner of agriculture and natural resources with commissioner of agriculture; 1972 act substituted “animals” for “dogs” in definition of “pet shop” and defined “animals”; P.A. 77-314 defined “training facility”; P.A. 82-91 expanded definition of commercial kennel to include a veterinarian hospital boarding or grooming dogs for nonmedical purposes; P.A. 91-46 included references to cats in the definition of “commercial kennel”; P.A. 91-59 replaced references to “regional canine control officer”, “assistant regional canine control officer” and “local dog warden” with references to “regional animal control officer”, “assistant regional animal control officer” and “municipal animal control officer”, respectively; P.A. 93-435 made certain technical and grammatical revisions to conform section to Connecticut's standard statutory style, effective June 28, 1993; P.A. 98-12 changed “canine control officer” to “animal control officer” in Subdiv. (2), effective July 1, 1998; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6 replaced Commissioner of Agriculture with Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective July 1, 2004; P.A. 04-189 repealed Sec. 146 of June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, thereby reversing the merger of the Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective June 1, 2004; P.A. 19-156 redefined “commercial kennel” in Subdiv. (3), effective July 9, 2019; P.A. 21-90 amended Subdiv. (10) to redefine “poultry” and added Subdiv. (13) to define “service animal”, effective June 28, 2021; P.A. 24-69 amended Subdiv. (5) to redefine “grooming facility”, deleted definition of “regional animal control officer” in former Subdiv. (11), redesignated existing Subdiv. (12) as Subdiv. (11) and redefined “training facility” therein, redesignated existing Subdiv. (13) as Subdiv. (12), effective May 30, 2024.

“Kennel” defined. 84 C. 640. One who treats dog as living at his home and undertakes to control his actions is the owner, keeper or harborer. 117 C. 309; 119 C. 650. Both husband and wife within definition of “keeper”. Id. One having temporary custody of dog was not “keeper”. 126 C. 123. Defendants were “keepers” as a matter of law. 138 C. 718. Cited. 139 C. 628; 221 C. 14; 241 C. 319.

Cited. 7 CA 19; 9 CA 495. Exercising control over the actions of a dog as well as feeding, watering, housing or otherwise caring for a dog can be evidence of “keeper” status. 120 CA 324.

What constitutes harboring or having in possession. 5 CS 150. Owners of premises where dog was kept considered “keepers” and held liable for damage done by dog. 36 CS 156.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 943 A.2d 391 (Conn. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 943 A.2d 391 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 16× “The defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict, claiming, first, that the evidence was insufficient to *156 support a finding that it was a “keeper” of Salinas’ dog within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 22-327 (6) and 22-357 and, second, that the trial court…”

Murphy v. Buonato, 696 A.2d 320 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 5× “The trial court found that the plaintiff was not a “keeper” of the dog as defined by General Statutes § 22-327 (6) 3 and awarded the plaintiff damages and interest pursuant to General Statutes § 52-192a in the total amount of $39,364.”

Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 894 A.2d 329 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 6× “General Statutes § 22-327. To harbor a dog is to afford lodging, shelter or refuge to it.”

Stokes v. Lyddy, 815 A.2d 263 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Consistent in the common-law duty and in § 22-357 is the requirement that liability be based on control (owners-keepers). The term “keeper” is defined in the General Statutes as “any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog .”

Falby v. Zarembski, 602 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 2× “Finally, we address the third issue because it is likely to arise at retrial. *19 I General Statutes § 22-357 imposes strict liability on the owner or keeper of any dog that does damage to the body or property of any person.”

Buturla v. St. Onge, 519 A.2d 1235 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 22-327 defines a “keeper” as “any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog .”

Maccarone v. Hawley, 507 A.2d 506 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 22-327 provides in pertinent part: “ ‘keeper’ means any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog .”

Murphy v. Buonato, 679 A.2d 411 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “’ General Statutes § 22-327 [(6)]. To harbor a dog is to afford lodging, shelter or refuge to it.”

Bailey v. Desanti, 414 A.2d 1187 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1980). “” done by a dog, and § 22-327 defines a “keeper” as a “person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog.”

State v. Ancona, 991 A.2d 663 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 22-327 (6) provides that “ l[k]eeper’ means any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog .”

Simmons v. Welch, 854 A.2d 114 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “n light of that allegation, the defendant is entitled to prevail on his motion for summary judgment if he can demonstrate, based on all the evidence presented on the motion and all reasonable inferences that may logically be drawn therefrom, that there is no genuine issue of…”

Murphy v. Buonato, 684 A.2d 708 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 2× “239 (AC 14053), is granted, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the plaintiff was a ‘keeper’ under General Statutes § 22-327 and prohibited from recovering from the dog’s owner for injuries caused by the dog when the plaintiff was…”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-327(6) — 1 case

Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 943 A.2d 391 (Conn. 2008). “The defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict, claiming, first, that the evidence was insufficient to *156 support a finding that it was a “keeper” of Salinas’ dog within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 22-327 (6) and 22-357 and, second, that the trial court…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.