George v. Paffen
2007 WL 1426985, 957 So. 2d 861 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord may only be held liable in negligence for injuries caused by a tenant's animal if the landlord had actual knowledge of the animal's vicious propensities.
Facts:
- Diane Lipps leased a house to Linda Paffen, who lived there with her son Joseph Sandoval and kept a pit bull named Kane.
- Neighbors, including the mother of the victim, repeatedly complained to Lipps about the dog barking, roaming free, and expressed general safety concerns.
- Plaintiffs alleged Lipps knew the dog had previously killed a neighborhood cat.
- Lipps was aware that Animal Control had been called to the property but had not issued any citations against the tenant.
- On one occasion, Lipps personally interacted with the dog, and it licked her hand.
- On August 21, 2002, Joseph Sandoval was unloading the dog from a van at the residence when it broke free.
- The dog ran into the neighboring yard and attacked Kyle George, who was playing there, causing severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth George, on behalf of his minor son Kyle, sued Linda Paffen and Joseph Sandoval in a Louisiana trial court.
- The Georges filed an amended petition, adding the landlord, Diane Lipps, as a defendant.
- Lipps filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing she was not liable for the actions of her tenant's dog.
- The trial court granted Lipps's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against her.
- The Georges (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a landlord liable in negligence for injuries caused by a tenant's dog when the landlord received general complaints about the dog but lacked actual knowledge of its specific vicious propensities?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge McManus
No. A landlord is not liable for negligence unless they have actual knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity. While a landlord is not strictly liable for a tenant's animal, liability for negligence can attach under La. C.C. arts. 2315 and 2316 if a duty is violated. This court's precedent establishes that this duty arises only when the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous nature. In this case, the evidence of neighbor complaints about barking, roaming, and general safety concerns, combined with the fact that Animal Control found no violations, does not amount to actual knowledge of viciousness. Without such knowledge, Lipps had no specific duty to act, and therefore cannot be held liable.
Dissenting - Judge Wicker
Yes. This matter is not ripe for summary judgment because the plaintiffs have shown that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the landlord's knowledge. At the summary judgment stage, plaintiffs need not definitively prove actual knowledge, but only demonstrate that there are material facts in dispute. The evidence, which includes continuous neighbor complaints about safety, Lipps's knowledge that the dogs were pit bulls, and the allegation that she knew one had killed a cat, is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the case should be remanded for further proceedings to determine what Lipps actually knew.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to hold a landlord liable for a tenant's animal in Louisiana. It clarifies that 'actual knowledge' of a 'vicious propensity' requires more than just awareness of the dog's breed, general complaints, or knowledge that the animal roams freely. The ruling protects landlords from broad liability, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that the landlord was on notice of specific, dangerous behaviors before a duty to protect third parties arises. This makes it more difficult for victims of animal attacks to recover from non-owner landlords.
