Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc.
351 Md. 544, 719 A.2d 119, 1998 Md. LEXIS 807 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord owes a duty of care to a tenant's guests for injuries caused by another tenant's vicious animal kept on the leased premises, even for injuries occurring inside the tenant's apartment, if the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities and retains the ability to control its presence through lease provisions.
Facts:
- Shelly Morton leased an apartment from Amberwood Associates Limited Partnership, Inc., which was managed by Monocle Management, Ltd.
- Morton's lease contained a 'no pets' clause, which stated that a breach of this rule would be considered a default of the lease.
- Despite the lease, Morton kept her boyfriend's pit bull dog, named Rampage, in her apartment.
- Over a two-month period, multiple employees of the landlord had dangerous encounters with Rampage, observing it lunging at them and chasing a child, and reported the dog's presence and viciousness to the apartment complex's management.
- On February 9, 1994, Shanita Matthews and her 16-month-old son, Tevin Williams, were visiting Morton in her apartment.
- While Morton was briefly out of the room, Rampage attacked Tevin, grabbing him by the neck and shaking him.
- Matthews and Morton were unable to free the child until Morton stabbed the dog repeatedly.
- Tevin Williams died from his injuries approximately one hour after the attack.
Procedural Posture:
- Shanita Matthews and Andre T. Williams filed a lawsuit against Amberwood Associates and Monocle Management in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
- The jury found the defendants liable for wrongful death and under a survival action, awarding over $5 million in damages.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on a separate count for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Both parties appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the landlord owed no duty to the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs (Matthews, et al.) petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, which was granted.
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 owe a duty of care to a tenant's social guest who is injured inside the tenant's apartment by a vicious dog, when the landlord had actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, the dog's presence violated the lease, and the landlord had the ability to have the dog removed?
Opinions:
Majority - Eldridge, J.
Yes. A landlord owes a duty of care to a tenant's social guest injured by a vicious animal inside the leased premises when the landlord has knowledge of the danger and the ability to control it. The court reasoned that while a landlord typically does not control conditions within a leased property, an exception exists when the landlord retains control through the lease. In this case, the 'no pets' clause gave the landlord the authority to demand the dog's removal or terminate the tenancy, thus providing the necessary control to establish a duty. The harm was highly foreseeable, as the landlord had actual knowledge from its own employees that this specific dog was vicious. Weighing the policy considerations of tenant privacy against public safety, the extreme danger posed by a known-vicious pit bull, coupled with the landlord's knowledge and control, justified imposing a duty of care.
Dissenting - Chasanow, J.
No. A landlord does not owe a duty to a social guest for an injury occurring entirely within a tenant's leased premises, an area outside the landlord's control. The majority's decision improperly extends landlord liability into a tenant's private home, contrary to established Maryland law that landlords are not responsible for nuisances created by tenants. The landlord lacked true control because the lease did not explicitly provide for repossession upon breach of the 'no pets' clause, and any right to enforce it was likely waived by accepting rent after learning of the dog's presence. Furthermore, the victim's mother, Shanita Matthews, had far greater knowledge of the dog's temperament than the landlord, and her own negligence in supervising her child should be considered an intervening, superseding cause of the tragedy. This ruling shifts blame from the culpable party (the dog's keeper) to the party with deeper pockets (the landlord).
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of landlord liability in Maryland by extending a landlord's duty of care to dangers existing within a tenant's privately leased premises, not just common areas. The ruling establishes that contractual control, such as a 'no pets' clause, can be a sufficient basis for imposing a duty if the landlord has actual knowledge of a specific, foreseeable, and serious danger. This precedent pressures landlords to be more vigilant in enforcing lease terms to avoid liability for tenant-created hazards, potentially impacting lease drafting and landlord-tenant relationships in future cases involving dangerous conditions on leased property.
