Gallick v. Barto
1993 WL 284948, 828 F.Supp. 1168, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10412 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Pennsylvania law, a landlord out of possession may be held liable for injuries caused by a tenant's wild animal if the landlord had knowledge of the animal's presence and the right to control or remove the animal by retaking possession. A ferret is legally classified as a wild animal, and knowledge of its dangerous propensities is presumed.
Facts:
- Bruce and Betty Barto owned a rental house and leased it to Todd Long and Shawnee Miller on July 28-30, 1990.
- The lease agreement contained a clause stating, 'No Pets.'
- Approximately one week after moving in, the tenants informed Betty Barto that they owned a ferret.
- About two weeks after the lease was signed, Betty Barto visited the property and personally observed one ferret, which she mistakenly thought was a mink.
- The Bartos were aware the tenants were keeping a ferret in violation of the lease but did not initiate eviction proceedings.
- The tenants, Miller and Long, kept three ferrets as pets, allowing them to roam freely inside the house.
- On March 8, 1991, Leonard and Sonina Gallick were visiting the tenants and placed their seven-month-old infant, Brittany Gallick, on a bedroom floor to sleep.
- While Brittany was sleeping, one of the tenants' ferrets bit her on the face, causing open wounds and permanent scars.
Procedural Posture:
- Leonard and Sonina Gallick, on behalf of their infant daughter Brittany, filed a lawsuit against landlords Bruce and Betty Barto in federal district court.
- The Bartos joined the tenants, Shawnee Miller and Todd Long, as third-party defendants.
- The Gallicks were also named as third-party defendants.
- The defendant landlords, Bruce and Betty Barto, filed a motion for summary judgment to have the case against them dismissed.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Pennsylvania law, is a landlord out of possession potentially liable for injuries caused by a tenant's ferret when the landlord knew of the animal's presence and had the contractual right to evict the tenant for violating a 'no pets' clause?
Opinions:
Majority - McClure, District Judge
Yes, a landlord out of possession is potentially liable under these circumstances. The court determined that under Pennsylvania's Game and Wildlife Code, a ferret is legally classified as a 'wild animal' because it is not included in the statutory definition of a 'domestic animal.' The animal's individual tameness or its commonality as a pet does not alter its legal status. Furthermore, a landlord out of possession may be liable for injuries caused by a tenant's animal if two conditions are met: (1) the landlord has knowledge of the animal's presence, and (2) the landlord has the right to control or remove the animal. Here, the Bartos knew about the ferret, and the 'No Pets' clause in the lease gave them the right to initiate eviction proceedings, which constitutes a form of control. Because the ferret is a wild animal, there is a legal presumption that the landlord has notice of its dangerous qualities, making their actual knowledge of its specific propensities irrelevant.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that an animal's legal classification under statute, not its common perception or individual temperament, dictates the standard of care for liability purposes in Pennsylvania. It imposes a significant duty on landlords to enforce lease provisions, particularly 'no pets' clauses. By linking the right to evict with the 'control' necessary for liability, the ruling cautions landlords that knowing inaction in the face of a lease violation involving a legally 'wild' animal can expose them to liability for injuries caused by that animal.
Unlock the full brief for Gallick v. Barto