Real Estate & Property Law

Is an HOA or Condo or Owner Responsible for A Tenant's Dog's Bite?

A dog can be "man's best friend." It can also be "man's worst enemy." Vicious dogs are a menace to all that are within their reach. Unpredictable dogs are ... well ... unpredictable. There are 11 breeds of dogs that have been identified by some insurance companies as uninsurable. Some HOAs and Condo Boards want to ban these dogs from the development.The requirements for this are for another blog. This blog is about whether HOAs or Condo Associations are responsible for injuries caused by dogs that are kept in the development. There is a case on this. The premise of the case decision is that the absence of actual knowledge of dangerous propensities of the dog is a factor in determining who is or is not responsible for injuries caused by the dog. In the case, it was a tenant's dog that ran out of a unit and knocked down a 71 year old resident causing injuries. Neither the owner of the unit (the landlord), the landlord's property manager, or the HOA Board had any knowledge that the dog in question (the tenant's dog) was dangerous. No complaints had been made to the HOA. Even though the injured party presented testimony of a dog expert that Jack Russell terriers should not be confined to a small area such as a condominium, the judge found that was not conclusive evidence the dog was vicious and likely to attack. So that took care of any "should have known" allegations.

The judge found that neither the unit owner landlord, the property manager, nor the homeowner's association had previous knowledge of problems with the tenant's dog and so they are not liable for negligence or any other cause of action to the injured party.

Here is a quote from the case: "Consequently, it is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm," the judge ruled. The same goes for the association and others that were pursued for damages.

The owner of the dog would have liability; however, the common problem here is that tenants often are without the financial capacity or protection (because they often fail to insure) to compensate a "victim" so that person's attorney often looks around for a "deeper pocket".

The decision discussed is based on the 2006 California Court of Appeal decision in Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 40.

What you should not take away from this blog is a misconception that you are completely safe if you are in an HOA, on the Board, managing the property, or anyone other than a dog owner whose dog causes injury to others. There are plenty of cases that hold HOAs and others responsible for injuries caused by animals when those persons have some responsibility because of their management role over the property where the animal is kept and they fail in some way to assure that those using the property are safe from danger. The key is - when any danger is indicated or reported, or there is a situation where the danger should have been apparent, it is time to do something about it ... what to do depends on the circumstances. Watch for a blog on an idiot, a biker chick, an aggresive german shepard, a pig's ear, and two police officers for a real life question about what to do in a situation where there is an aggressive dog on premises in violation of the rules of the association.

Full post as published by California Condo & HOA Law on October 01, 2009 (boomark / email).