The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a dog bite claim made by Abigail Goldman-Nagel against the 4th Ward Condominium Association. This ruling, issued on October 22, 2026, affects Goldman-Nagel and the condominium association, clarifying the legal responsibilities of property owners in dog bite incidents.
The case, officially known as Abigail Goldman-Nagel v. Bradley Werntz, was filed under docket number 2025AP000137. Goldman-Nagel alleged that the condominium association was negligent for failing to prevent her from being bitten by a dog named Pako, owned by residents Bradley Werntz and Vera Naputi. The court ruled that the association could not be held liable under both statutory and common law negligence claims.
Background
Goldman-Nagel's legal battle began in June 2022 when she filed a complaint after being bitten by Pako in a hallway of the condominium building. At the time of the incident, Goldman-Nagel was with her father, Robert Nagel, who had a dog belonging to his partner, Molly Lawson. The bite occurred when Pako, owned by Werntz and Naputi, was in the elevator with them.
In her complaint, Goldman-Nagel argued that the condominium association was negligent for not taking preventive measures against Pako, whom she claimed was known to be dangerous. She asserted that the association's board members were aware of Pako's behavior prior to the incident and failed to act accordingly.
The condominium association responded by filing for summary judgment, arguing that they could not be held liable under Wisconsin law. They contended that they did not own, harbor, or keep the dog, which is essential for establishing liability under WIS. STAT. § 174.02, the statute governing dog bite injuries in Wisconsin.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the association could be held liable for Goldman-Nagel's injuries. The court noted, "the only reasonable inference from the summary judgment materials is that the Association did not harbor or keep the dog."
The judges emphasized that the association, as a corporate entity made up of unit owners, did not provide shelter or care for Pako. The ruling clarified that ownership and control over a dog must be established for liability to exist, and in this case, only Werntz and Naputi had custody of Pako.
Furthermore, the court found that common law principles preclude liability for property owners unless they are also the owners or keepers of the dog that caused the injury. The judges stated, "an owner of property can be liable for common law claims for negligence associated with injuries caused by a dog only if the property owner was an owner or a keeper of the dog."
Impact
This ruling sets a significant precedent regarding the liability of condominium associations in dog bite cases. It clarifies that simply owning property where a dog resides does not automatically make a property owner liable for injuries caused by that dog. The decision reinforces the need for clear evidence of ownership or control over the animal to establish liability.
The outcome of this case may influence future dog bite claims involving condominium associations and similar entities. It highlights the importance of understanding the legal definitions of ownership, harboring, and keeping in relation to dog bite statutes, which could affect how such cases are approached in Wisconsin.
What's Next
Goldman-Nagel has the option to appeal the ruling to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. However, as of now, there are no related cases pending that could directly influence this decision.