Can a landlord be liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog?

You're taking a morning walk on a nice, sunny day. An adjacent home's side gate is open, and a large dog bolts towards you, having escaped through the open yard. We know what happens next.

This common scenario often results in serious injuries. As with many personal injury cases, dog bite cases usually require an investigation. The identity of the dog and the dog's owner must be ascertained. Dog bite cases are often covered under homeowner's policies. But what if the dog was owned by a tenant renting the property? Are there grounds to hold the landlord liable for injuries caused by the tenant's dog? This was the question presented by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Fraser v. Farvid. (2024 DJDAR 1255.)

Civil Code Section 3342

California's dog bite statute is found in Civil Code Section 3342. It holds:

(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

The statute, which was first codified in 1953, imposes strict liability on any California dog owner for harm caused when his or her dog bites someone. Other states presume that a dog is not dangerous until it inflicts its first bite. This is commonly referred to as the "one-free bite" rule. California does not follow the "one-free bite" rule. Instead, a California dog owner is liable the very first time his or her dog bites someone.

Donchin v. Guerrero

Prior to Fraser, California courts discussed the issue of landlord liability for tenant dog bites in a number of cases. A key case is Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1832. In Donchin, David Swift owned a residence that he rented out to tenant Ubaldo Guerrero. Mr. Guerrero owned a pair of Rottweilers who broke loose from the yard and attacked Donchin. She sued Guerrero for strict liability, and Swift for premises liability. The crux of Donchin's argument against Swift was that as the landlord, he had a duty to remove the dangerous dogs from his property.

The Court held that a landlord can be found liable for a tenant's dogs only if the landlord had actual knowledge of the dogs' vicious propensities. A landlord's actual knowledge can be demonstrated through direct or circumstantial evidence. In Donchin, the evidence showed that multiple neighbors had complained to Swift about the dangerous Rottweilers on his property. A UPS delivery worker testified that the dogs were ferocious and had acted aggressively towards him in the past. Swift originally denied knowing that dogs were even being held on the property, but he later admitted in his responses to interrogatories that he'd played with the dogs when he visited the property. The Court found that enough circumstantial evidence existed to rebut Swift's claims that he lacked actual notice of the dogs' dangerous behaviors.

Fraser v. Farvid

Fraser has similar facts to Donchin. Joni Fraser was attacked by two pit bulls who escaped from a residence rented by Hebe Crocker. After settling with Crocker, Fraser sued the landlord, Ali Farvid, arguing that he had a duty to remove the dangerous dogs from the property. A jury found that Farvid had actual knowledge of the dogs' dangerous propensities, but the trial court granted his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The Court of Appeal affirmed. It relied on Farvid's testimony that, prior to the attack, he had no idea his tenant had dogs on the property. The plaintiff emphasized that a neighbor had sent Farvid's wife an email the year before the pit bull attack. The email mentioned general maintenance issues related to the house, and it made a passing reference to "guard dogs." "Guard dog" can mean a lot of things. The Court found that this vague description could not support a reasonable inference that Farvid knew that his tenant's dogs were dangerous.

Conclusion

Approximately 20,000 people suffer dog bites in Los Angeles County every year. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that in 2022, there were over 48,000 ER visits for dog bite injuries throughout California. Just last week, a Compton man was mauled to death by his pit bulls. In large metropolitan areas with a high percentage of tenants, injured plaintiffs often must seek alternative theories to trigger additional insurance coverage for dog bites. Nevertheless, to hold a landlord liable for a tenant's dog, a plaintiff must show that the landlord had actual knowledge of the tenant's dog's vicious propensities. Both circumstantial and direct evidence can be presented to prove the landlord's knowledge. But absent a showing that the landlord knew about the dog's dangerousness, there will likely be no grounds for a plaintiff injured by a tenant's dog to hold the landlord liable.