Pennsylvania Court Rules in Landlord’s Favor in Pit Bull Case
May 15th, 2012A Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a landlord was not responsible for injuries suffered by a child who was bitten by a pit bull on his property. The court decided that the landlord had no knowledge of the dog’s propensity to be dangerous.
The case started in June 2008, when a pit bull bit a 10-year-old boy on the nose while on the premises owned by landlord Robert Miller. The girlfriend of Miller’s tenant owned the dog. The child’s parents sued the tenant, the girlfriend and the landlord.
The mother argued that the dog had dangerous propensities and the landlord was liable for damages, because he knew or should have known about them, and failed to remove the dog from the premises or warn of its presence.
The landlord, who in turn sued his tenant, his girlfriend and the boy’s grandparents (who brought him to see the dog), denied that he permitted the tenant or the girlfriend to keep the dog on the premises. He also denied he ever had knowledge of the dog’s alleged dangerous propensities.
A court found in the landlord’s favor in December 2010. The boy’s mother appealed and the Superior Court upheld the previous ruling. The judges on the panel agreed that although there was an issue about whether or not the dog had dangerous propensities, the plaintiff did not produce evidence that the landlord had actual knowledge of them.
The court ruled that “actual knowledge of a dog’s dangerous propensities is required before a duty is imposed upon a landlord to protect against or remove an animal housed on a rental property.”