1. STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY 5th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. 12345
Sam and Sandy White on behalf of Adam White,
Plaintiff
V. MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Sharon Stone,
Defendant
Questions Presented
1. Can Sharon be liable for Adam’s injuries?
2. Did Adam trespass on Noah’s yard, making Sharon not liable?
Facts
Noah Blake asked Sharon Stone if she could “babysit” his 100 pound Siberian Husky
named Bubbles while he would be out of town for a week. Sharon quickly agreed and moved
into Noah’s house that had a fenced yard so that his dog had space. When she first got to the
house, she let Bubbles outside to play while she unpacked her things inside, but froze when she
heard a scream coming from the backyard where Bubbles was playing.
Sharon ran outside and saw Adam White lying on the ground with his arm bleeding from
a dog bite. Adam also had a stick in his hand and Bubbles standing next to him growling. Sharon
immediately took Bubbles inside and called 911 for medical help.
Adam received 55 stitches to repair a deep gash in his arm. Sharon later found out 10
year old Adam lived in the neighborhood. Adam said he was leaning over the fence, teasing
Bubbles with the stick. Bubbles grabbed the stick, pulling Adam over the fence. Biting him
while trying to grab the stick out of his hands.
Argument
Sharon can not be held liable for Adam’s injuries, because the dog was in it’s own fenced
backyard. If a dog without provocation, attacks or injuries any person who is acting peaceably in
any place the owner is liable. Minn. Stat. §347.22. The dog in this case was provoked by Adam
climbing over the fence and teasing it with a stick to get his attention.
He should have asked either his parents or Sharon for permission to play with Bubbles.
Teasing was not the right decision. Adam should have known that leaning over a fence with a
stick would make Bubble act wrongfully towards him.
Adam was a neighbor to Noah he should of talked to Noah about Bubbles before
provoking Bubbles. Also did the parents know what Adam was doing outside looking out to see
if everything was okay should have been done by the parents. Sharon is not liable because she

2. did not provoke the dog. Adam was leaning over the fence teasing the dog with a stick. Sharon
also let Bubbles out because she knew there was a fence all around the house; Bubbles didn’t
have a previous record of being a violent dog to people.
Adam is liable for provoking Bubbles by teasing it with a stick. Erickson v.
Hammermeister, 458 N.W. 2d 172(1990), states that while a dog was sleeping, a four year old
attempted to get on it’s back and that startled the dog. The dog bit her on the face, exposing her
jawbone and causing her to lose tissue and a portion of her jawbone, Including two baby teeth
and one permanent tooth bud. The Court found the defendant liable for the dog’s actions. Sharon
didn’t do anything to provoke the dog. In comparison, Adam wanted Bubbles attention by
showing the stick provoking him to get the stick out of Adam’s hands. Adam knew that a stick
would get Bubbles to go near to get it.
Minn. Stat.§347.22 states that if a dog that is not provoked attacks or injures a person
who is being peacefully in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is
liable for damages done to the person attacked to the full amount of the injury. In this case Adam
was teasing Bubbles even though on his land but the teasing made the dog act wrongfully.
Adam was also liable for trespassing Noah’s yard while trying to get the dog attention.
Minn. Stat. §347.22 states that if a dog that is not provoked attacks or injures any person who is
acting peacefully in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable.
In our case, Adam is liable because he provoked the dog even while being in his land by lending
over and teasing Bubbles. Adam provoked Bubbles making him want the stick and causing him
to try and get the stick by biting him and bringing him into Noah’s land Adam than trespassed.
Weber v.St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co., 7 N.W.2d 339 (1942) this shows the owner
of land is liable if he knows or should know that the place is somewhere children are likely to go
into. A condition upon the premises involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such children. The
particular child injured by such condition did not clearly know and appreciate the risk. In this
case, Noah’s house had a fence all around for his dog to be able to have fun, and space because
he knew that his dog was big. Adam was 10 year old and should have known if the yard had a
fence and knew there was a dog, he should have been more careful when leaning over to tease
the dog.
In Bailey v. Morris, 787 N.W. 2d 220 (1982), a girl was bitten when she reached out to
pet the dog and sustained a 4½ centimeter cut on her forehead when the owner of the dog had
told her that the dog could be over protective because she had just had her puppies. The little girl
still pet the dog after hearing it growl at her for protection. After the removal of stitches, a scar
remained her doctor's advice was he recommended cosmetic surgery to improve her appearance.
The court found, that the dog had been provoked. In this case, just like the little girl,
Adam wanted to get Bubbles attention by teasing him over his fence. Causing Bubbles to want
the stick Adam had in his hand by biting him on the arm. The dog wanted the stick not to bite
Adam so pulling Adam over was an easy way for Bubbles to get the stick. He could have easily
thought Adam wanted to play.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, Defendant Sharon Stone requests that this court dismiss the
charge against Sharon for liability for the child’s injuries. Sharon is not liable because Adam

3. provoked Bubbles by being over the fence teasing and he trespassed into Noah’s yard when
Bubbles bit and pulled Adam into Noah’s yard.
Respectfully Submitted,
Isabel Gutierrez