Neighbor Sues Dog Owner Over Liability for Bite Incident

A neighborly dispute has escalated into a legal battle over liability for a dog bite incident. Jeffrey M. Polfuss and Karen A. Polfuss have filed an appeal against Wisconsin Mutual Insurance Company and Cassee J. Buschke in the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV, on January 8, 2026. The plaintiffs are challenging a circuit court decision that favored the defendants, arguing that the lower court erred in its judgment.

The case revolves around an April 2023 incident where Jeffrey Polfuss was bitten by a dog owned by his neighbor, Cassee Buschke. According to court documents, the incident occurred when Polfuss attempted to return an ice pack to Buschke’s home without knocking, entering through a storm door that led into a mudroom. This act resulted in him being bitten by Buschke’s dog, requiring thirty stitches for his injuries. The plaintiffs argue that under Wisconsin Statute § 174.02(1), known as the dog-bite statute, Buschke is strictly liable for damages caused by her dog. However, the circuit court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of Buschke based on public policy factors outlined in Fandrey v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., which suggests liability may be precluded if a person enters a home without consent and is injured by a dog.

The appeal highlights several disputed facts crucial to determining liability: whether Polfuss had implied consent to enter due to the neighborly relationship between the families and whether he was acknowledged by Buschke upon entering her property. The appellate court noted that these disputes make it inappropriate for summary judgment since reasonable people could differ on these points.

Jeffrey Polfuss claims he was acknowledged by Buschke before entering her home, suggesting an implicit invitation or at least acceptance of his presence—a key factor distinguishing this case from Fandrey where entry was unauthorized and unexpected. Moreover, previous incidents involving the same dog were cited as evidence of potential prior knowledge of aggressive behavior by the owner.

The plaintiffs seek reversal of the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings where they hope to prove their case before a jury. They argue that holding homeowners accountable under such circumstances aligns with statutory intentions to protect individuals from harm caused by animals not adequately controlled by their owners.

Representing Jeffrey M. Polfuss and Karen A. Polfuss are attorneys whose identities remain undisclosed in this document while Judge Rhonda L. Lanford presided over the initial ruling now under appeal (Case ID: 2025AP1186).