On the issue of landlord liability for dogs, a recent Appeals Court decision keeps landlords out of the doghouse for some of the problems that can arise from a tenant’s pets. The full decision, Creatini v. McHugh, is included below.
This was a lawsuit brought by a man who was riding a bicycle with his dog running on a leash beside him, and attacked by a tenant’s dog on the street. This man sued the tenant’s landlord for his damages: someone he did not know, and who he never had any sort of relationship with.
Besides the obvious question, of why this man was riding a bicycle while walking his dog, this case raises the important issue of a landlord’s liability for a tenant’s dog. As the Court explained, does “a landowner h[ave] a legal duty to protect passers-by from a dog kept on the landowner’s property, but owned by the landowner’s tenant?”
Here, the Court ruled “no.” As explained in the decision:
Here, [the landlord and other party] had no special relationship.
Indeed, they had never met. Creatini’s injury did not occur on
McHugh’s property, but on a public street. Nothing in the
summary judgment record indicates that McHugh was aware that
Mills’s dog was aggressive or prone to attack passers-by. In
these circumstances, we agree with the judge’s conclusion that
“[a]n injury to a person running a leashed dog while riding a
bicycle on a public street from a dog fight started by an unleashed dog is not a foreseeable event that warrants the
imposition of a duty upon a landlord.”
Creatini is a good decision for landlords. Imposing liability on a landlord in these circumstances would have opened the “flood gates” for all sorts of potential liability for a tenant’s conduct.
I caution, however, that there are three critical parts of this decision that lead to this outcome: (1) the injured man had no relationship to the landlord; (2) the landlord had no knowledge that the dog was dangerous; and (3) the injury occurred on the street, and not on the landlord’s property.
If any of these facts were different, this decision could have come out the other way. If, for example, the landlord knew that the dog could have caused harm to someone else, a stronger case could have been made against the landlord. For this reason, landlords cannot turn a blind eye if they have good reason to believe that a tenant’s dog is dangerous.
If you need assistance with a landlord-tenant matter, contact me for a consultation.a19P1159