Owner Not Liable for Tenant's Pet

February 1, 2009

Facts: A tenant's dog attacked and severely injured a young child on the premises. The child's parent sued the dog's owner and won a substantial award, and later attempted to sue the building's owner for allegedly not evicting the tenant or forcing him to get rid of his dog. The court ruled in favor of the owner, and the young child's parent appealed.

Decision: A District of Columbia appeals court upheld the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of the building owner.

Facts: A tenant's dog attacked and severely injured a young child on the premises. The child's parent sued the dog's owner and won a substantial award, and later attempted to sue the building's owner for allegedly not evicting the tenant or forcing him to get rid of his dog. The court ruled in favor of the owner, and the young child's parent appealed.

Decision: A District of Columbia appeals court upheld the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of the building owner.

Reasoning: The court acknowledged that a property owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to cure a dangerous condition if: (1) he has actual or “constructive” notice of the condition; and (2) he has the right to exercise control over the condition.

In this case, the owner did have notice of the dog's presence on the premises, but because the lease did not contain a “no-pets” clause, the owner had no legal authority to compel the tenant to remove the dog.

  • Armentha Campbell v. Raymon Noble, December 2008

Topics

More like this