Tenant's Not Liable For Dog Attack In Own Backyard

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

As neither a landlord nor its management company were “keepers" of a tenant’s dog that allegedly attacked a minor child in the tenant's back yard, the child’s claim against them alleging they were strictly liable under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 22-357 for the damages caused by the dog was dismissed on summary judgment. Plaintiff minor child, through his mother, sued defendants, a landlord, a management company, and two tenants, alleging defendants were liable, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357 and 22-363, for injuries the child sustained after being bitten by a dog owned by one of the tenants. The child also asserted negligence and recklessness claims. The landlord and company moved for summary judgment.

The child alleged he was an invited guest at the tenants' house; he was attacked by the dog in the backyard of the tenants' premises; and he was not committing a trespass or other tort or teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog. The landlord owned the premises and the company was its property manager. The court held that ownership of the premises where a dog lived, without evidence of caretaking of the dog or control over its actions, was not enough to hold a landlord strictly liable under § 22-357 for damage caused by the dog. As neither the landlord nor the company were keepers of the dog, the § 22-357 claim against them failed. As they did not own or harbor a dog that was allegedly a nuisance, they were not liable to the child under § 22-363. Since they did not own the dog that inflicted the injuries, they owed no duty of care to the child and thus could not be liable for common law negligence. As the alleged attack occurred in an area leased exclusively to the tenants, as opposed to a common area under their control, they owed no duty to the child on a theory of premises liability. As they owed no duty of care to the child, the child's recklessness claims failed as well. The landlord and company were granted summary judgment on all claims.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.

Please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Maurice v. Franklin, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2323 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sep 08, 20