Sligar v. Odell
Washington Court of Appeals
233 P.3d 914, 2010 WL 2674037 (2010)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
Mary Sligar (plaintiff) and Kara and David Odell (defendants) were next-door neighbors whose properties were separated by a six-foot-high chain-link fence. The Odells owned two dogs, Chico, a Labrador retriever, and Molly, a golden retriever. Sligar owned three miniature schnauzers, including Pearl. One day, while attempting to move Pearl away from the fence, Sligar tripped and fell against it. Her finger protruded through the fence, and Chico bit it. Sligar sued the Odells for damages, alleging statutory strict liability and common-law negligence. The Odells moved for summary judgment on both claims. They argued that they were not strictly liable because Sligar was not lawfully on their property. Sligar responded that she had the Odells’ implied consent because she had previously reached through the fence to pet Molly, leaned on the fence while talking to the Odells, and attached chicken wire to her side of the fence. As to the negligence claim, the Odells asserted that they were not negligent because there was no evidence that Chico had dangerous propensities or that they breached any duty by keeping him within their fenced yard. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Odells on both claims. Sligar appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cox, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.





