Bruce v. Durney
534 S.E.2d 720, 341 S.C. 563, 2000 S.C. App. LEXIS 121 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-resident property owner is not liable for injuries caused by a dog owned and kept by a tenant, as liability rests solely with the dog's 'owner' or 'keeper' who exercises care, custody, or control. This holds true regardless of whether a formal landlord-tenant relationship exists, as a landlord's duty to maintain 'fit and habitable' premises pertains to the physical condition of the property, not a tenant's animals.
Facts:
- Xen K. Motsinger owned residential property where his daughter, Lisa Durney, and her husband lived.
- The Durneys lived on the property rent-free under a verbal arrangement, and Motsinger did not reside there, though he visited approximately once a week.
- The Durneys were the sole owners and exclusive caregivers of their Chow dog, 'Buffalo'.
- Motsinger was not involved in the dog's care, custody, or control.
- Jodie Bruce's minor daughter, Kinsli, was allegedly bitten by the Durneys' dog while in a neighbor's yard, off the premises of the Durney and Motsinger property.
- Motsinger was not present at the time of the alleged incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Jodie Bruce, on behalf of her minor daughter, filed a lawsuit in the circuit court (trial court) against the Durneys, as the dog owners, and Xen K. Motsinger, as the property owner.
- Defendant Motsinger moved for summary judgment, arguing he was not liable as a matter of law.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Motsinger.
- Bruce (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-resident property owner, who allows family members to live on his property rent-free, have a legal duty that would make him liable for injuries caused off-premises by a dog owned and cared for exclusively by those family members?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Judge
No, a non-resident property owner is not liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog. The court analyzed liability from two perspectives: as a landlord and as a property owner. First, it determined that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between Motsinger and the Durneys, even without a written lease or rent, classifying them at least as tenants at will. Citing South Carolina precedent like Fair v. United States, the court affirmed that a landlord's duty to provide 'fit and habitable' premises relates to the physical state of the property and does not extend to controlling a tenant's animal. The court explicitly rejected premises liability theories that would hold a landlord liable merely for knowing about a tenant's potentially dangerous dog. Second, viewing Motsinger simply as a property owner, the court found he was not liable under S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110, which assigns liability to a dog's 'owner' or 'keeper'. Since Motsinger did not live on the property and exercised no care, custody, or control over the dog, he did not meet the definition of a 'keeper'.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict interpretation of liability for animal-inflicted injuries in South Carolina, confining responsibility to those with direct ownership or control over the animal. It provides a strong defense for non-resident landlords and property owners against claims arising from their tenants' pets, clarifying that knowledge of a dangerous animal is insufficient to create a legal duty. The ruling effectively insulates passive property owners from liability, forcing plaintiffs to focus their claims exclusively on the individual who owns, keeps, or controls the animal.
