Dog Bites: When is the Landlord Responsible? (Feb. 05 Apartment News)

Dog bites are an issue many landlords face in the management of their properties. This article will examine landlord liability in these situations.

EXAMPLE CASE

Consider the following example:

A guest sues the landlord for negligence for a dog bite, claiming that the mere presence of dogs belonging to a resident on the property makes management liable for negligence. The case involves a renter’s pit bull named Bad, which has a questionable reputation among other community residents. Although the canine never bit another resident or guest, other renters indicate it acts aggressively when people pass by the unit. As the owner walks his dog on the property, it bites a large chunk out of the hand of a resident’s guest who attempted to pet the animal as it walked by. The injured individual sues. In Turnbow v. WYE Electric, Inc., a Louisiana Court of Appeals examined a similar fact situation, and the decision held that unless guests could show that the landlord had actual knowledge of the dog’s aggressive or vicious propensities, the landlord would not be liable. At court, community employees testified that the landlord did not know the dog was dangerous. Additionally, three other witnesses testify that they had been to the resident’s apartment on several occasions and did not notice any aggressive or vicious behavior.

ARIZONA STATUTES

In Arizona, the landlord’s duty for aggressive dogs or dogs with aggressive or vicious propensities is similar to that of Louisiana, with a little twist. Brady v. Skinner, 132 Ariz. 245, 646 P.2d 310, states that the duty of care arises when a landlord has actual knowledge of the presence of a dangerous animal and when he or she has the right to remove the animal by retaking possession of the premises.

It is also well settled in Shirley v.National Applicators of California, Inc. 115 Ariz. 521, 566 P.2d 322 that duties and liabilities of the landlord to persons on the leased premises by consent of a resident are the same as those owed to a resident himself or herself. These are followed up by Martinez v. Woodmar, 189 Ariz. 206, 941 P.2d 218, which basically holds that the landlord’s duty to residents, residents’ guests, and invitees of the resident shall attach when he or she knew or should have known about a danger or peril in the common areas.

Therefore, in the above case, if the landlord never received any type of notice that the dog had aggressive or vicious propensities, then it is unlikely that he would be liable for the dog biting another resident, guest or invitee. However, if the landlord knew or should have known about a dog’s aggressive or vicious propensities, and that dog bites or harms a resident, guest or invitee, then the landlord should have taken reasonable steps to remedy the situation by removing the dog. The landlord will likely be held responsible.

Once management knows or should have known about a dog’s vicious or aggressive propensities, then the landlord has a duty to all residents, guests and invitees to remove the dog from the community. Otherwise, it will be responsible for all foreseeable damages as a result of that dog’s actions.

Not only are there civil penalties against landlords for knowingly allowing a renter to harbor an aggressive or vicious animal, there also could be criminal ramifications. Recently in the city of Show Low, several pit bulls escaped from their confinement and attacked and killed a five-year-old girl. The dogs’ owner knew of their aggressive and vicious tendencies and allowed the dogs to escape.

If a landlord knows or should have known about aggressive or vicious tendencies of another resident’s animal and doesn’t have that animal removed from the property, and subsequently a vicious attack takes place resulting in harm, the law could also hold him or her criminally liable, along with the animal’s owner.

All owners and managers should either not allow any dogs on the property or institute serious and meaningful breed restrictions, including bans on such breeds as Pit Bulls, Doberman Pinschers, Chows, Rotweliers, Bulldogs, Mastiffs, German shepherds and any others with known aggressive or vicious tendencies. Each owner and/or management company will need to develop a policy for his or her own purposes.

Eliminating or reducing dogs on the property will have a beneficial effect on the landlord’s responsibility. Additionally, check with your insurance company to see if there is a rate reduction for eliminating or limiting breeds on the property.

Management should keep in mind that if a disabled person needs an assistive animal, it cannot impose breed restrictions on him or her. However, if a landlord learns later that an assistive animal is aggressive or vicious, he or she can begin the process of having the owner remove the animal, or, alternatively, removing the resident and the animal.

Denny Dobbins and Matt Koglmeier

Attorneys at Law

480-962-5353