Murder conviction for dog attack shows need for control

September 23, 1:19 PMBusiness Law ExaminerMatthew Nelson

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Business Law Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The circumstances regarding a recent murder conviction in San Francisco for a death from a dog attack were very bizarre, but the fact remains that there are more ordinary circumstances under which a court can hold a dog owner and/or that person's landlord responsible for harm from a dog attack. The owner's liability is based typically on not properly controlling his or her pet and the landlord's liability is often for allowing the owner to keep the dog in the rental unit.

Although the underlying law in your state might be different, holding a landlord liable generally requires proof that the landlord knew before the incident that caused harm that the tenant had a dangerous animal and did not respond adequately on that knowledge. Many states base knowledge that a dog is dangerous on that animal being a breed that has tends to be vicious. These laws often specifically identify pit bulls and great danes as these breeds. As such, a landlord who knows that a tenant has a pit bull may be held liable if that dog attacks someone even if the dog has been as gentle as a lamb for many years during a tenancy.

The second common basis for holding a landlord liable for an attack by a tenant's dog is a dog of any breed showing prior violent tendencies. This may consist of the dog snapping at people who come to the tenant's home or actually attacking someone previously. Some states do allow essentially "one free bite" by not holding a landlord liable for a dog's first attack of someone and other states impose liability the first time that such an attack occurs.

This potential liability makes it very important that a landlord know if a tenant has a dog and if that dog's presence presents a risk of liability as described above. The obvious solution under these circumstances is that the landlord send the tenant a return receipt letter that requires that the tenant either find a new home for the dog or move and that the landlord keep the signed receipt and a copy of that letter. It is also a good idea that the landlord or the landlord's representative visit the rental property a few times to verify that the tenant has found the dog a new home or brought it to a shelter that is preferably a no-kill shelter.

If the landlord has good reason to believe that the tenant has gotten rid of the dog, it is unlikely that a court will hold the landlord liable for any future attack by the dog if the tenant in fact has kept it. A court decided recently that a landlord was not liable for an attack by a tenant's dog after the landlord told the tenant clearly that the dog could not move into the rental home and the tenant later said falsely that the dog was no longer living there.

I am a fanatical animal lover and check shelters regularly for two cats to adopt but recognize that dogs that pose a threat simply must not allowed to harm anyone. It seems that a home with a securely fenced-in yard is a good option in most cases.

My e-mail is nelsonexaminer@gmail.com, and questions and comments are always welcome. Please remember that nothing that I write can be considered legal advice or provide a basis for an attorney-client relationship.