2d DCA 1987) (landowner "cannot be held responsible" for injuries caused by a tenant's dog that occur somewhere other than the landowners property) see also, O'Steen v. The court held that the landlord was not responsible for the attack by the tenant's dog that occurred (1) outside the leased premises and (2) on property not owned by the landlord. 1st DCA 1982), the tenant's dog ran into a public street and attacked a motorcyclist. In tort cases involving liability for the actions of dogs, no Florida court has held that a landowner has a duty to prevent injuries that might occur when a tenant's animal escapes the leased premises and causes injury away from the property. "While owners are responsible for the mischief done by their dogs, no man can at common law, be held liable for the mischief done by another's dog unless he had some agency in causing the dog to do it." 4 AM.JUR.2d Animals § 92 (1962). A person was said to have harbored a dog if he or she undertook to care for the dog as the owners of such animals are generally accustomed to do. At common law, only those who owned the dog, had an interest in the dog, or harbored the dog could be liable for injuries caused by the animal. Appellant cites no common law authority for his position that a landlord may be liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog outside the property owned by the landlord. Although the so-called "dog bite" statute, section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1993) controls actions against a dog's owner, actions against a non-owner must be brought upon a theory of common law liability. The existence of a duty in a negligence action is a question to be decided as a matter of law.
#Bancroft wisconsin time zone trial
The trial court concluded that appellee knew that (1) the tenant owned a vicious dog (2) the dog posed a risk of escaping from the property and, (3) appellee could control the dog's presence.
One day the dog jumped over a fence and attacked appellant on property not owned by appellee. Appellee did not reside at this house, but instead rented it to a tenant who owned a dog. Appellant lived next door to a house owned by appellee. Therefore, for purposes of the motion and this appeal, all of appellant's (plaintiff below) factual allegations are accepted as true. The case went before the trial court on appellee's (defendant below) motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Because a landlord has no duty to prevent injuries to third parties caused by a tenant's dog away from leased premises, we affirm the judgment below.
The issue for review in this appeal is whether a landlord may be liable for an attack by a tenant's dog that occurs away from the leased premises on property not owned by the landlord.
Essentially, a landlord has no duty to prevent injuries to third parties caused by a tenant's dog away from leased premises. He existence of a duty in a negligence action is a question to be decided as a matter of law. The appellate court upheld a motion of summary judgment in favor of the defendant non-owner. In this Florida case, a tenant's next-door neighbor, who was bitten by tenant's dog when it leaped over fence and then attacked the neighbor on property not owned by landlord, brought a personal injury suit against the landlord.
0 kommentar(er)
