SCOVT affirms summary judgment that neither landlord nor guest of tenant/dog-owner owed a duty to passerby injured when pit bull escaped because they had no "reason to know" that the dog in question posed an unreasonable risk

Eric Gross and Adrianne Gross v. Elizabeth Turner and Antonio Flores , 2018 VT 80 [filed 8/10/2018]

REIBER, C.J. In this negligence action, we consider whether a landlord and a social guest of a tenant may be held liable for injuries caused by the tenant’s pit bulls to a third person outside of the landlord’s property. We conclude that plaintiffs failed to establish that either defendant owed a duty of care to the injured plaintiff in this case, and therefore affirm.

A landlord owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect persons outside the land from injuries caused by a tenant’s dog if the landlord knew or had reason to know at the time of entering the lease that the dog in question posed an unreasonable risk of harm to such persons. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 379A. To survive summary judgment on their negligence claim against landlord under the above rule, plaintiffs had to present admissible evidence from which a jury could conclude that at the time of entering the lease, landlord knew or had reason to know the tenants’ dogs posed an unreasonable risk to persons outside the land. Plaintiffs did not meet this burden.

Liability under § 379A turns on whether a landlord “knew or had reason to know” at the time of the lease that the particular animal in question is abnormally dangerous. the phrase “reason to know” does not imply a duty to investigate: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 12, cmt. a. Landlords are not obligated to conduct background checks on tenants’ pets.

A dog’s breed alone is not sufficient to put its owners or others on notice that it poses an unreasonable risk of harm,. In Vermont, liability in dog-bite cases has always depended on the propensities of the individual animal.

Assuming for the purpose of summary judgment that the jury could find the guest was acting as the dogs’ keeper, plaintiffs’ negligence claim against him still fails, for the same reason as their claim against the landlord: they have not shown that the guest knew that the dogs posed a threat to anyone. Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant knew or had reason to know that the dogs were a probable source of danger, such that he owed a duty to third persons to restrain them. Nor have they demonstrated that he voluntarily undertook to restrain the dogs.