Finch v. Thurston County

¶17 (dissenting) — The majority holds that because the police dog here was on duty, the strict liability imposed for dog bites under RCW 16.08.040(1) does not apply. This holding ignores the plain language of the exemption found in RCW 16.08.040(2) (discussed infra). The majority also sees no need to involve a fact finder in making determinations under the strict liability dog bite statute and its statutory exception, observing that the “category of activity” to which strict liability is to be applied “is a question of law for the legislature or the court to decide.” Majority at 751 n.5.…