caretaker and therefore owed the same duty as their owners to control the animals.
¶ 22. Under Vermont common law, a dog’s owner “is not liable for injuries to persons
and property unless the owner had some reason to know the animal was a probable source of
8
For this reason, plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the evidence of other alleged incidents
they submitted with their motion to reconsider are not helpful to their claims because no evidence
shows that Turner knew of these incidents. They are therefore not material to plaintiffs’ negligence
claim against her.
10
danger.” Davis v. Bedell, 123 Vt. 441, 442-43, 194 A.2d 67, 68 (1963). Where the owner knows
that the dog is dangerous, he or she has a duty “to exercise reasonable control and restraint” of the
dog to avoid injury to others. Id. at 443.
¶ 23. We have recognized that in addition to owners, “keepers” of dogs may be held
liable under the above rule. See Crowley v. Groonell, 73 Vt. 45, 47 50 A. 546, 546-47 (1901)
(“The owner or keeper [of a dog], having knowledge of its disposition to commit such injuries
must restrain it at his peril . . . .”). The term keeper is not clearly defined anywhere in our caselaw.
However, we have held that where a dog was owned by the defendant’s minor son, but the
defendant “housed, harbored and fed the dog in the way such animals are usually kept by owners,
and permitted him to be a member of his family, in so far as such domestic animals can be members
of families, he may well be regarded as the keeper of the dog.” Plummer v. Ricker, 71 Vt. 114,
116, 41 A. 1045, 1045 (1898). This suggests that being a keeper requires a person to exercise a
similar degree of control and care for a dog as its owner. Other courts have interpreted the term