STEPHANIE BRADACS V JAMES JIACOBONE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
STEPHANIE BRADACS,
FOR PUBLICATION
January 9, 2001
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 215055
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 96-532122-NO
JAMES JIACOBONE and BARBARA
JIACOBONE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Updated Copy
March 16, 2001
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Kelly and Sawyer, JJ.
SAWYER, J. (concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but write separately because I do not agree
with its analysis.
I believe that we must reach the question whether the provocation under the dog-bite
statute, MCL 287.351; MSA 12.544, must be intentional or unintentional. In my view, there are
three potential variations: (1) the victim intentionally provoked the dog (e.g., he kicked the dog),
(2) the victim intentionally did an act that unintentionally provoked the dog (e.g., he intentionally
petted the dog, not believing that the dog would take exception to being petted), and (3) the
victim committed an unintentional act that provoked the dog (e.g., the victim accidentally tripped
and fell, landing on the dog).
All would agree that the first category comes within the statute. We need not address the
second category because this case falls within the third category. I do not believe that the
-1-
Legislature intended the third category (unintentional acts) to constitute provocation. Therefore,
I agree with the majority that the decision of the trial court should be reversed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
-2-
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.
