Sullivan’s act of tying the dog to the tree, in conjunction with her providing of food and water amounts to “care, custody or control” of the dog. Like the defendant in McEvoy, who was deemed to be in control of the dog because, through his children, he was the last person to exercise control before the incident, Mrs. Sullivan was the last person to exercise some degree of control over the dog by tying it to a tree. In contrast to the defendant in Goennenwein, who allowed her son’s dog to remain on her premises for dinner when it bit the minor victim, Mrs. Sullivan did more than merely permit the dog to be on her property. She took affirmative steps to secure the dog when it became apparent that no one else was going to do so. By tying the dog to the tree, and providing it with food and water she “harbored” the dog. Although the Geonnenwein court pronounced that when the true dog owner is present and in control of the dog, the property owner cannot be considered an “owner,” the dog’s true owners were not controlling their dog in any meaningful way, which is why Mrs. Sullivan took
Sullivan’s act of tying the dog to the tree, in conjunction with her providing of food and water amounts to “care, custody or control” of the dog. Like the defendant in McEvoy, who was deemed to be in control of the dog because, through his children, he was the last person to exercise control before the incident, Mrs. Sullivan was the last person to exercise some degree of control over the dog by tying it to a tree. In contrast to the defendant in Goennenwein, who allowed her son’s dog to remain on her premises for dinner when it bit the minor victim, Mrs. Sullivan did more than merely permit the dog to be on her property. She took affirmative steps to secure the dog when it became apparent that no one else was going to do so. By tying the dog to the tree, and providing it with food and water she “harbored” the dog. Although the Geonnenwein court pronounced that when the true dog owner is present and in control of the dog, the property owner cannot be considered an “owner,” the dog’s true owners were not controlling their dog in any meaningful way, which is why Mrs. Sullivan took