Crain v Trafford, 2025 NBKB 42 (CanLII)
Reading Time: 3.5 minutes (approx.)
By: Krista Nasartschuk
The recent case of Crain v. Trafford et al has highlighted the responsibilities of pet owners and provides a unique example of a dog-bite incident occurring in a place of business.
The Plaintiff in this matter was an occasional visitor to the Defendants’ Bed and Breakfast and was familiar with their dog, Mitsy, who frequently interacted with visitors. Testimony was provided which indicated that none of the Defendants’ 800+ guests had ever experienced any issues with Mitsy.
Unfortunately, on the evening of February 27, 2021, while relaxing in the living room of the Bed and Breakfast, the Plaintiff walked past Mitsy and, in doing so, reached down to pet her. Mitsy allegedly lunged at the Plaintiff, biting and causing significant injury to her lip.
Justice E. Thomas Christie states that cases such as these hinge on the issue of foreseeability. Justice Christie further stated that as the owners of a business hosting guests, there was an undeniable duty of care owed to the Plaintiff with respect to reasonably foreseeable risks.
Evidence had been presented which suggested that Mitsy had demonstrated recent changes in behavior, whether due to age or due to the recent death of two of the Defendants’ other dogs. Specifically, Mitsy had reacted aggressively towards other dogs and the Defendants had chosen to isolate Mitsy from their new puppy as a precautionary measure.
Justice Christie concluded that the Defendant’s knowledge of Mitsy’s changed behavior/temperament created an obligation to warn guests that Mitsy may react aggressively, despite not having done so towards visitors previously. The Defendants’ failure to warn their guests of the dog’s change in temperament resulted in the Plaintiff being injured in foreseeable circumstance.
Upon visiting the hospital following the bite incident, the Plaintiff was advised that Public Health would be notified because her injury had arisen due to a dog bite. Public Health subsequently contacted the Defendants to inquire as to Mitsy’s vaccination status and the Defendants had reportedly indicated that they were uncertain with respect to Mitsy’s rabies vaccination. The Plaintiff was subsequently instructed by Public Health to undergo a series of rabies shots due to the Defendants’ “lack of cooperation” with Public Health with respect to the determination of Mitsy’s vaccination status. Justice Christie relied on the fact that the Defendants subsequently opted to have Mitsy “put down” rather than follow Public Health’s directives to confine Mitsy due to her unclear vaccination status as further evidence of their lack of assistance with the Department of Public Health.
Based on the foregoing, despite the resolution of the Plaintiff’s injuries, Justice Christie awarded the Plaintiff a slightly higher general damages award as she had endured eight rabies-related injections due to the Defendants’ lack of assistance in determining the vaccination status of Mitsy.
In summary, pet owners, and particularly those business owners whose pets regularly come into contract with patrons, would be prudent to advise visitors of any changes in their pets behavior and be well-informed with respect to their pets health records in order to ensure compliance with Public Health inquiries and avoid an elevated damages award.
