Tracey v. Soleski

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2012 · Torts

TortsDog-bite liabilityStrict liabilityLandlord liabilityCommon law modificationpit bullstrict liabilitylandlord

Facts

A tenant kept a pit bull named Clifford on leased residential property, and both the owner of the dog and the landlord knew of the dog's presence. Clifford escaped twice from a small, obviously inadequate pen and attacked at least two boys on the same day. The second victim, Dominic Solesky, suffered life-threatening injuries, including injury to his femoral artery, underwent five hours of surgery, remained hospitalized for seventeen days, and spent a year in rehabilitation. The case against the landlord had failed at trial because the evidence was deemed insufficient under prior common law negligence standards.

Issue

Whether Maryland should modify its common law and impose strict liability on a pit bull's owner and on a landlord who knows or should know that a pit bull is kept on the premises, without requiring proof that the defendant knew the specific dog had vicious propensities. More specifically, the court considered whether harboring a pit bull is an inherently dangerous activity for which landlords may be held strictly liable.

Rule

In Maryland, pit bulls are inherently dangerous. When an owner or landlord is proved to have knowledge of the presence of a pit bull on the premises, or should have had such knowledge, a prima facie case is established, and it is unnecessary to prove that the owner or landlord had actual knowledge that the specific pit bull was dangerous.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, Nina Flores keeps a purebred pit bull in her rowhouse. The dog had never bitten anyone before, but one afternoon it bolts through an open gate and severely injures a jogger on the sidewalk just outside the property.

Under the Maryland rule established by the majority opinion, what must the jogger prove to make a prima facie case against Nina?

Explanation. The majority replaced the traditional scienter rule for pit bulls with a breed-specific strict liability rule. Once the plaintiff proves the dog was a pit bull and the defendant owner knew or should have known of the pit bull’s presence on the premises, a prima facie case is established. Proof that the owner knew the specific dog had vicious propensities is unnecessary. (Derived from Tracey v. Soleski (n.d.).)