Clea v. Odom
714 S.E.2d 542, 2011 S.C. LEXIS 272, 394 S.C. 175 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord may be liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog in a common area under a theory of statutory strict liability if the landlord exercised 'care or keeping' of the dog, and under a common law negligence theory if the landlord knew of the dog's dangerous propensities and failed to maintain the safety of the common area.
Facts:
- Edward Carter owned an apartment complex with common areas.
- Essix Shannon, a tenant, kept his dog chained to a tree in a common area of the complex for nearly ten years.
- Carter knew the dog was kept in the common area, and he would occasionally interact with and feed the dog.
- The dog had previously attacked another child, and Carter was aware of this incident.
- After the first attack, Carter threatened to require Shannon to get rid of the dog but never followed through on this threat.
- Two-year-old Trevon, who was visiting the complex with his mother, approached the dog in the common area.
- The dog attacked Trevon, causing numerous injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The injured child's mother (appellant) filed a lawsuit against the landlord, Edward Carter (respondent), in a South Carolina circuit court (trial court).
- The complaint alleged three causes of action: strict liability, common law negligence, and attractive nuisance.
- The circuit court granted the landlord's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the appellant's claims.
- The appellant appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court 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 landlord face potential liability under (1) a statutory strict liability theory for having a dog in his 'keeping' or (2) a common law negligence theory for failing to keep common areas safe, when a tenant's dog with known vicious propensities attacks a guest in a common area?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Pleicones
Yes, a landlord may be liable under both theories, and the grant of summary judgment was improper. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the landlord's long-term acquiescence and control over the common area where the dog was exclusively kept amounts to having the dog in his 'keeping' for strict liability purposes. Furthermore, a landlord has a statutory duty to keep common areas in a reasonably safe condition, which is breached when the landlord, with knowledge of a tenant's vicious dog, fails to remedy the dangerous condition it creates in a common area. The court found that while a landlord is typically not liable for attacks on leased premises, this rule does not extend to common areas over which the landlord retains control. However, the attractive nuisance claim fails because a dog is not an 'artificial condition' on the land.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands potential landlord liability in South Carolina by distinguishing between attacks on leased premises and those in common areas. It establishes that a landlord's duty to maintain safe common areas includes mitigating known dangers posed by tenants' animals. The ruling shifts the common law standard, which traditionally insulated landlords, by creating potential liability where a landlord has both control over the property and knowledge of the danger. This precedent incentivizes landlords to be more proactive in addressing potentially dangerous animals kept in shared spaces within their properties.
