A landlord can face liability in PA for a dog owned and controlled by a tenant. The two common distinctions is between attacks on the landlord’s property versus those off of the premises.
1. Attack On the Landlord’s Premises – Landlord Liability
Landlord liability can exist for a dog bite on the landlord’s property, when the landlord (a) knows of the dangerous nature of the dog and (b) has the opportunity to control it or remove it from the premises.
A landlord has duty to protect those who lawfully come onto the property, such as an invitee and those entering the common areas, including yards and hallways for which the landlord is primarily responsible.
The landlord has a duty to refrain from renting to people harboring dangerous dogs that are not reasonably contained.
The landlord may also be required to provide working locks, latches, or other restraints or fences where a tenant’s dog is known to be harbored, especially if the lease provides that only the landlord can make chances to the fixtures on the property, such as adding to the height of a fence or replacing a latch or lock known to be defective. You will want to have your lawyer obtain the lease to get this information.
2. Attack Off the Premises – Landlord Liability for a Dog Bite
It gets more complicated when your claim is against a landlord out-of-possession for a dog bite off the landlord’s premises.
It’s “complicated,” because many misunderstand the law in this area. Some lawyers incorrectly believe that a landlord owes no duty to any person bitten by a tenant’s dog, when the attack occurs off the landlord’s property. This is not true. Landlord liability in Pennsylvania has no distinction between “on premises” and “off premises.”
The rule is simply: “[a] landlord out of possession may be liable for injuries by animals owned and maintained by his tenant when the landlord had knowledge of the presences of the dangerous animal and where he has the right to control or remove the animal by retaking possession of the premises.” Polermo v. Nails, 334 Pa. Super. 544, 483 A.2d 871 (1984).
Attack in the Street – Landlord Liability for a Dog Bite
Moreover, in Underwood ex rel. Underwood v. Wind, 954 A.2d 1199 (Pa.Super. 2008), a landlord was sued for an attack by the tenant’s dog. There, the minor-Plaintiff was attacked in a public street away from the landlord’s property. Id.
Specifically, the child had been “walking down the street after playing a pick-up game of football with her friends, when first one dog then the other attacked her to the ground, both biting her and breaking the skin.” Id. The reason for the attack was a faulty latch on a door to the landlord’s property. Id. There, the dog at issue had a history of escaping the landlord’s property. Id. at 1202.
Ultimately, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against the landlord. Id. On appeal by the landlord, the superior court granted a new trial to the defendant landlord, but only because the jury had been instructed that a landlord can be liable if he should have known” (versus having actual knowledge) of the dog’s dangerous propensities. Id. The case was remanded for a new trial, despite the attack happening in the street, as here. Id.
A Dog Bite Escaping the Landlord’s Property and Chasing
Likewise, in Dick v. Detwiler, 7 D&C 4th, page 629, a tenant’s dangerous dog escaped the landlord’s property and chased a child next door; the child was injured during the chase. Said chase occurred in the backyard of two separate properties. One of those properties was owned by the landlord whose dog was not reasonably restrained; the other property was owned by the parents of the minor who was injured. Id.
Still, the court performed no analysis of whether the child was an “invitee,” or where, exactly, the attack had even occurred. The trial court simply cited Polermo, supra, and denied the landlord’s motion for summary judgment. Id. at 631, 634.
In regard to an attack off the landlord’s premises, a lawyer may be tempted to rely on Janosevich v. Raines, 2011 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 411. There, the Honorable Judge Judith Friedman dismissed a case against a landlord when the attack by the tenant’s dog happened off the landlord’s premises. However, in that case, the dog was on a leash and under the active control of the tenant. Id. There, clearly, no nexus existed between the attack and the defendant-landlord’s property. Judge Friedman sustained the landlord’s preliminary objections. Id.
The decision was appealed to the superior court. In a non-precedential opinion (non-binding on subsequent cases), the superior court upheld the Judge Friedman’s dismissal, but for reasons different from hers. See Janosevich, Superior Court, I.O.P. 65.37, J-A24029-12, page 1. By negative implication, and citing to Underwood ex rel. Underwood v. Wind, 954 A.2d 1199 (Pa.Super. 2008), supra, the Superior Court opined that the landlord-Defendant could be liable for an attack off the landlord’s premises, so long as a “nexus” exists between the landlord’s property and the attack. “[In Underwood, supra] there was a clear nexus between the landlord’s property and the dog attack, that being the existence of the faulty latch of which the landlord had notice.” Id. at page 10-11 (emphasis added).
Like several other jurisdictions, Pennsylvania has no preclusion of property owner liability for an attack that occurs off the landlord’s premises. Park v. Hoffard, 847 P.2d 853 (Or. 1993), Donchin v. Guerrero, 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 192 (Cal. App. 1995).
Landlord Liability in States
The Supreme Court of Oregon ruled that a landlord can be liable if the landlord knew that the dog posed an unreasonable risk of harm to persons off the rental property. Park v. Hoffard, 847 P.2d 853 (Or. 1993). There, the landlord knew that the dog – as here — had been declared “potentially dangerous” by the county after it bit a child, and that the dog was sometimes allowed to roam. Id.
A California Court of Appeals ruled similarly, stating that liability for a dog bite off the premises depends on the same factors as liability for an injury on the premises. If, for example, a dog escapes because of defects in the landlord’s property, the landlord would be liable for off-site injuries caused by the dog. Donchin v. Guerrero, 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 192 (Cal. App. 1995).
Finding a Nexus With the Landlord’s Property
Thus, the non-precedential opinion in Janosevich, supra, shows that Pennsylvania’s superior court has – like other jurisdictions — stopped short of eliminating landlord liability for an attack occurs off the landlord’s property, so long as there exists a “nexus” between the landlord’s property and the attack. Janosevich, Superior Court, I.O.P. 65.37, J-A24029-12, page 1.
Finding a “nexus” between the property (or landlord) and the dog bite can be easy if, for example, there is a special relationship between the landlord and tenant, where they share in caring for the dog or maintaining the known space it occupies.
A lawyers should focus investigation on the connection between landlord and tenant, beyond what they say, because often, you will need to serve a subpoena or do other investigation to discover the overlapping duties.
UPDATE: in a very recent case, Eggelston v. Richards, PICS Case No. 22-1457. (C.P Lawrence Sept. 29, 2022) Mott. J. (11 pages), the defendant-landlord moved for dismissal from the case. The reason? The deposition testimony established the fact a prior incident, where the landlord come to the door and had seen the dog act aggressively. The motion for summary judgment was denied. However, the motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages did succeed, because there was not evidence to support a finding of “malice” on the part of the landlord.
You should talk to our Pittsburgh lawyers to learn how the above cases might apply to your claim for injuries or your defenses, if you are the landlord. Call us before facing liability for a dog bite by a dog owned by the tenant.