TortsLandlord liabilityDog biteslandlord liabilityvicious dogknowledgeinitial lettingreasonable care
Facts
Sophie Zoltanski owned rental property with two residences and leased one house to Carl Kenyon on an oral basis in May 1979. Plaintiff submitted evidence that before the lease, Zoltanski saw Kenyon's German Shepherd tied on the premises in full view while it was barking loudly, jumping, growling, and acting ferocious. Shortly after, 14-year-old plaintiff went onto the premises to get the dog after Kenyon offered it to him, and the dog bit him. On the summary judgment record, there was no evidence that Zoltanski took any lease-based or other precaution to protect persons on the premises from the dog.
Issue
Whether a landlord may be liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog when, at the time of the initial lease, the landlord knew the prospective tenant had a vicious dog that would be kept on the premises and nevertheless leased the property without taking reasonable protective measures.
Rule
When a landlord, prior to leasing premises, has knowledge that a tenant will keep a vicious dog on the premises, the landlord has a duty to take reasonable precautions within the landlord's control, by lease provisions or otherwise, to protect third persons on the premises from foreseeable injury. The landlord is not strictly liable as a harborer, but may be liable under ordinary negligence principles for failing to exercise reasonable care.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Albany, Nora Feldman showed a rental cottage to Devin Price. During the showing, Devin's mastiff was chained in the yard, lunging, snarling, and barking as Nora watched, and Devin told Nora the dog would stay there to guard his tools. Nora orally rented the cottage to Devin without adding any conditions about the dog. Two weeks later, a package courier walking up the driveway to deliver a parcel was bitten.
If the courier sues Nora, which is the strongest argument against summary judgment for Nora?
Explanation. The majority rule is that a landlord who, before leasing, knows the prospective tenant has a vicious dog that will be kept on the premises has a duty to take reasonable precautions within the landlord's control, by lease provisions or otherwise, to protect third persons on the premises from foreseeable injury. The landlord is not strictly liable as a harborer, and the fact the dog was tied is not conclusive. Here, the evidence would permit a jury to find pre-lease knowledge of both the dog's presence and vicious propensities, plus no precautionary measures, so summary judgment would be improper. (Derived from Strunk v. Zoltanski (n.d.).)