Braese, Jr. v. Stinker Stores, Inc.
Annotate this CaseBryce Fuller walked into a gas station/convenience store owned and operated by Stinker Stores, Inc., with his golden retriever Darma. The dog had on a collar and leash, but Fuller was not holding the leash while he was at the counter making a purchase. At first, Fuller was standing facing the counter with the dog at his left side, but during the transaction, Fuller turned so that his right side was next to the counter. When he did so, the dog remained, sitting in front of Fuller and facing the counter. When Fuller went to complete his purchase, the dog raised up and put her front paws on the counter, and the cashier gave her a dog treat. The entire transaction took about two minutes, and during that time the dog, while sitting in front of Fuller, raised up and put her front paws on the counter six other times, apparently wanting more treats. While Fuller was putting his change into his pocket and preparing to leave, Richard Braese walked into the store. The front door of the store was to Fuller's front, but he had his head turned to his right facing the cashier. Braese walked past Fuller and around to his rear and then reached with his right hand toward the cashier to pay for a lottery ticket. When he did so, Darma quickly moved around the left side of Fuller, jumped up and hit Braese in the chest with her front paws. Braese filed suit seeking to recover damages against Stinker Stores, and he later amended the complaint to add Fuller as a defendant. Stinker Stores filed a motion for summary judgment, and, after briefing and argument, the district court granted the motion, holding that under the facts of this case Stinker Stores did not have a duty to protect Braese from Fuller's dog. The court entered a partial judgment dismissing with prejudice the claims against Stinker Stores. Fuller did not appear, and Braese obtained a default judgment against him for damages in the sum of $25,101.20. Braese then timely appealed the judgment in favor of Stinker Stores. Finding that Stinker Stores did not have a duty to protect Braese from Darma, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.