Can a landlord can be held liable for a tenant’s dog bite in California?

In California, a landlord can be held liable for a tenant’s dog bite under certain conditions. The landlord must have actual knowledge of the dog’s vicious nature and the dog’s vicious behavior must be reasonably foreseeable.  Alsawa v. Conde, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 19270. The general rule is that a landlord is not liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog, unless the landlord knew the dog was dangerous.  Thomas v. Zacarias, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 6431.

The landlord owes a duty of care to his tenant’s invitees to prevent injury from the tenant’s vicious dog when the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog’s vicious nature in time to protect against the dangerous condition on his property.  Yuzon v. Collins, 116 Cal. App. 4th 149.

Circumstantial evidence of a dog’s dangerousness, as well as direct evidence, can satisfy the requirement that a landlord have actual knowledge of the dangerous tendencies of an animal on their property.  Woodruff v. Johnson, 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 42284. However, a landlord is under no duty to inspect the premises for the purpose of discovering the existence of a tenant’s dangerous animal.  Only when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal, coupled with the right to have it removed from the premises, does a duty of care arise.  Mejia v. Bravo, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 42749.

Thus, the landlord’s liability for a tenant’s dog bite hinges on the landlord’s actual knowledge of the dog’s vicious nature and the foreseeability of the dog’s vicious behavior. This actual knowledge can be established through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence.  Woodruff v. Johnson, 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 42284. For example, if the landlord has been informed of the dog’s previous attacks or if the dog’s aggressive behavior is apparent and observable, the landlord may be deemed to have actual knowledge of the dog’s vicious nature.

The foreseeability of the dog’s vicious behavior is another crucial factor. If the landlord, with actual knowledge of the dog’s vicious nature, can reasonably foresee that the dog might cause harm, the landlord has a duty of care to prevent such harm.  Alsawa v. Conde, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 19270. This duty of care extends to the tenant’s invitees.  Yuzon v. Collins, 116 Cal. App. 4th 149.

However, it is important to note that the landlord is not required to inspect the premises to discover the existence of a tenant’s dangerous animal. The duty of care only arises when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal and the right to have it removed from the premises.  Mejia v. Bravo, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 42749.

In summary, a landlord in California can be held liable for a tenant’s dog bite if the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog’s vicious nature and the dog’s vicious behavior is reasonably foreseeable. The landlord’s duty of care extends to the tenant’s invitees. However, the landlord is not required to inspect the premises to discover the existence of a tenant’s dangerous animal. The duty of care only arises when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal and the right to have it removed from the premises.

As a final note, many local municipal codes define the “owner” of a dog differently.  In some municipalities, a landlord may be considered the “owner” of the dog if it knows of the dog and allows it to reside at the premises.  If the landlord is legally deemed the “owner” of the dog, the liability analysis is much simpler.

If you, or a loved one, have been injured by someone else’s dog, contact the experienced dog-bite attorneys at Heiting & Irwin for a free consultation.  Call us at (951) 682-6400 or visit us online at www.hilegalgroup.com