Risk Of Landlord Liability Rises In Pit Bull Attack Cases

Maryland landlords beware: the state's highest court has made it much easier for victims of attacks by pit bulls or pit bull mixes to win judgments-not only against the dog's owner, but also against any landlord that allows a pit bull or pit bull mix on leased premises.

To avoid liability, prohibitions on pit bulls or pit bull mixes in rental properties may become common. In light of the ruling, landlords and residential property managers should review their pet policies and consider changing them.

Previously, the Maryland courts had ruled that a landlord would be liable for a dog attack only if the landlord had "knowledge of past vicious behavior by the animal."

Now, in Tracey v. Solesky, the Court of Appeals of Maryland has concluded pit bulls and their crossbreeds are "inherently dangerous because of their aggressive and vicious natures, and their capability to inflict serious or fatal injuries."

As a result, the court decided that victims of pit bull or crossbred pit bull attacks don't have to prove any history of vicious behavior or knowledge of that viciousness.

The burden of proof on plaintiffs is now much lighter. To win the case, a plaintiff must only prove that the dog was a pit bull or crossbred pit bull and that the dog's owner or the landlord knew, or had reason to know, that the dog was a pit bull or crossbred pit bull mix.

Legally, the Tracey decision significantly alters the landscape in pit bull attack cases by establishing a "strict liability" standard for both dog owners and property owners.

More