Amanda Nigro, a part-time dog walker, experienced a terrifying ordeal when she was attacked by a large boxer named Forrest Gump. The incident, which occurred while she was attempting to put booties on the dog’s feet, led her to pursue a $1 million lawsuit against the dog’s owners.
However, her legal battle took a dramatic turn when Ontario’s highest court sided with the dog owners, dismissing her claim. The court determined that Nigro herself qualified as an “owner” under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA), a ruling that effectively left her with no legal recourse.
The court’s decision hinged on the concept of control. Judges found Nigro was “unquestionably the person in a position to control the behaviour of the dogs at the critical time.” This meant she shared responsibility, regardless of the owners’ direct instructions.
The attack unfolded on March 24, 2022, inside the Lucianos’ Oshawa home. As Nigro approached Forrest with the booties, the five-year-old dog lunged, clamping down on her left arm and violently shaking her. Despite her efforts to break free, the dog continued its relentless assault.
Nigro sustained significant injuries, including bites to her abdomen, left thigh, and both arms. She initially sought $350,000 in general damages and $650,000 in special damages to cover her medical expenses and suffering.
A lower court judge had previously dismissed the claim, a decision now upheld by the appeal court. The judge emphasized that physical possession of the dog immediately before the incident was the determining factor, regardless of whether Nigro was acting under the owners’ direction.
This ruling echoed a similar case from 2017, reinforcing the principle that anyone in control of a dog at the time of a bite can be considered an “owner” under the law. The location of the attack – the owners’ home – did not alter this assessment.
The legal defeat was compounded by a financial blow. Nigro was ordered to pay $5,000 in legal costs to the Lucianos, adding insult to injury after a harrowing experience and a failed lawsuit.
The case serves as a stark reminder of the complexities surrounding dog owner liability and the broad interpretation of “ownership” under the DOLA, extending beyond traditional definitions.
