Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 347.22 (2026)

Damages, Owner Liable

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term "owner" includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable. The term "dog" includes both male and female of the canine species.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Engquist v. Loyas, 803 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Engquist v. Loyas, 803 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 26× “Respondent Jill Engquist, as parent and natural guardian of the minor, Amber Engquist, commenced an action under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2010) for injuries Amber sustained as a result of a dog bite that occurred at the residence of appellants, Steven and Christina Loyas.”

Anderson v. Christopherson, 816 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 36× “This case requires us to interpret the Minnesota dog owner’s liability statute, Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2010). Respondent Gordon Helmer Anderson (Anderson) was injured during an attack on his dog, Tuffy, by a dog named Bruno, owned by respondent Neil Raymond Christopherson.”

Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 15× “Plaintiffs subsequently initiated an action based upon the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (1980). This statute states that: If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he may lawfully be, the owner of the…”

Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 691 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 10× “Hyatt’s complaint alleged liability solely on the basis of Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2004) (the dog bite statute), which holds a dog owner strictly liable for injuries caused by the dog so long as the dog was not provoked and the victim was acting peaceably in a place where she had a…”

Boitz v. Preblich, 405 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 29× “The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of respondents Preblich and Miller on all of appellants’ theories: Minn. Stat. § 347.22 ; common law scienter; common law negligence; and Ely City Ordinance § 515.”

Lewellin Ex Rel. Heirs of Lewellin v. Huber, 465 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. 1991). · cites it 22× “The court of appeals ruled that a dog's nonhostile behavior which sets in motion a chain of events causing injury to a person some distance away comes within the statute and may impose liability on the dog owner. We disagree and reverse.”

Collier v. Zambito, 807 N.E.2d 254 (NY 2004). · cites it 2× “351; Minn Stat Ann § 347.22; Mont Code Ann § 27-1-715; Neb Rev Stat § 54-601; NJ Stat Ann § 4:19-16).”

Lewellin Ex Rel. Lewellin v. Huber, 456 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 44× “The Hubers argue that the trial court erred in applying Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (1988), imposing strict liability based on the following stipulated facts (in part material): * * * * * * 3.”

Mueller v. Theis, 512 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 18× “In these consolidated appeals, appellants David and Kenneth Mueller challenge summary judgment, contending the district court erred in dismissing their absolute liability claim under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (1992) (dog owner’s liability) for insufficient causation.”

Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 700 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “Hyatt sued appellant City of Anoka and its police department under the "dog bite" statute, Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2002). The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) the dog bite statute does not apply to police dogs; (2) it is entitled to either statutory or vicarious…”

Morris v. Weatherly, 488 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 18× “* This is a consolidated appeal involving two actions for injuries caused by a dog under a strict liability theory pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (1990). Appellants in both cases contend the statute does not apply where the dog did not physically contact the injured party.”

Bailey Ex Rel. Bailey v. Morris, 323 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 12× “Plaintiff sued on a theory of strict liability under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (1980). The trial court denied her motion for a directed verdict.”

Show all 41 citing cases →

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.