Background
Jawara Davis was walking on Filhiol Avenue in Monroe when a pit bull ran from the yard of 1000 Filhiol Avenue, chased him, and bit his left hamstring. The dog’s owner, tenant Zac Johnson, called the dog back. Davis received hospital treatment for his injuries.
Davis sued Johnson and Johnson’s landlord, Shelton Properties Inc. He alleged that Johnson failed to restrain the dog and that Shelton was liable because it knew or should have known Johnson allowed the dog to roam unrestrained. Shelton had collected a $395 pet fee. After trial, the Monroe City Court awarded Davis $5,000 against Johnson but dismissed the claim against Shelton.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Davis’s claim against Shelton. A landlord is not strictly liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s animal merely because it owns the premises; the animal owner’s strict liability cannot be imputed to a nonowner.
For negligence or nuisance liability, Davis had to establish that Shelton knew or had reason to know, before the attack, that the dog had a vicious propensity. The record did not establish that knowledge. The alleged ordinance violation and Shelton’s collection of a pet fee did not cure that failure of proof.
Key Takeaways
- A landlord is not automatically liable for a tenant’s dog bite.
- Liability requires proof the landlord knew or should have known the dog had a dangerous propensity before the injury.
- A pet fee and knowledge that a tenant keeps a dog do not alone establish notice of dangerousness.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the high notice threshold for claims against landlords arising from tenant-owned animals. Plaintiffs must present evidence connecting the landlord to prior knowledge of the particular dog’s dangerous behavior, not simply evidence that the dog was unrestrained or that the landlord permitted pets.