Koetting v. Conroy

In Koetting v. Conroy, 223 Wis. 550, 270 N.W. 625 (1936), both the owner and one alleged to be a keeper were sued, an argument was made that if the owner is in control of the dog, another who is a keeper could not also be held liable. The supreme court rejected that argument stating, "It is inconsistent with the purpose of the statute. If one is the keeper of a dog, he is made responsible by the statute for injuries inflicted by it." Id. at 555, 270 N.W. at 627.