The Vermont Supreme Court recently addressed whether a landlord who had no knowledge that a tenant’s dog had dangerous propensities could be held liable for injuries the dog causes to individuals who enter the property with tenant’s permission. See Higgins v. Bailey, 2021 VT 74. In this dog bite case, Plaintiff alleged that her neighbor invited her into his home and shortly thereafter, the neighbor’s pit bull attacked Plaintiff without provocation and causing serious injuries. Plaintiff’s neighbor rented his home from Defendant landlords, who were living in Arkansas, and Plaintiff claimed that Defendants were liable for the injuries caused by their tenant’s dog and sued for negligence.
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and argued that they were not liable for Plaintiff’s injuries as they were not aware at the inception of the lease agreement with their tenant, or at any time prior to the attack, that their tenant’s pet had a dangerous propensity to attack people. Interestingly, tenant’s dog had previously bitten a child in the face before he rented the house from Defendant landlords. The previous bite was part of the reason tenant moved out of his prior residence. However, Defendant landlords were unaware of the previous bite when they rented to their tenant and did not ask him any questions concerning the dog. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant landlords and the Supreme Court affirmed.
On appeal, Plaintiff renewed her arguments made to the lower court, that landlords have a general duty of care to the public and the duty includes a reasonable inquiry concerning a tenants’ domestic animals. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that the Defendant landlords were placed on notice of the tenant’s dog’s dangerous propensities on the basis of observations made by a realtor, who was acting as Defendant landlords’ agent.
The Court described a landlord’s duty generally as follows: “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.” Id. at ¶ 15. The knew-or-should-have-known standard does not create an obligation of the part of the landlord to actively inquire into the dog’s history before permitting it to reside on the premises. Id. at ¶ 3. The trial court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gross v. Turner, in which the Supreme Court established that, “reason to know” means “actual knowledge of facts that would alert a reasonable person to the dog’s vicious propensities.” 2018 VT 80 ¶ 18. Beyond that, there is simply no duty to investigate or inquire as to the background of a tenant’s animal.
In Vermont, liability in dog bite cases always depends on the propensities of the individual animal (dog-by-dog basis). The Supreme Court held that, the mere fact that the dog is a member of a suspected dangerous breed is insufficient to put its owners or others on notice that it poses an unreasonable risk of harm, or that pit bulls or other breeds are dangerous. Higgins, 2021 VT 74 at ¶ 11.
From a Plaintiff’s perspective, suing a landlord is the easily accessible alternative to suing a tenant who lacks the insurance and resources necessary to pay for damages and medical expenses. In Higgins, Plaintiff had originally named the tenant as a Defendant, but the court subsequently dismissed that claim at Plaintiff’s request due to tenant’s inability to pay restitution.
Generally, Higgins v. Bailey affirms previous jurisprudence weakening the ability of dog attack victims and survivors to sue landlords in cases involving tenants’ dogs.