Murillo v. Hernandez
772 So. 2d 868, 2000 WL 1637611 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner is not liable for negligence for injuries caused by a third party's animal on the premises unless the plaintiff proves the owner had actual knowledge of the animal's vicious propensities.
Facts:
- Vincent Hernandez brought his 65-pound mixed-breed dog, Spike, to the Amor Viviente Church property for the day, as he planned to watch a soccer match with a friend who lived in one of the church-owned apartments after the service.
- Hernandez initially tied the dog to a pipe in a shady area during the 10:00 a.m. church service.
- At around 11:00 a.m., a church member saw six-year-old Rodolpho Joshua Murillo throwing rocks at the tied-up dog, and the church's volunteer administrator, Diogenes Reyes, stopped Murillo.
- After the service, Hernandez moved his truck to the apartment area, let Spike play with some children including Murillo, and then chained the dog to his truck's bumper.
- At approximately 2:30 p.m., while Hernandez was inside his friend's apartment, Murillo approached the dog again.
- An eyewitness saw Murillo pull the dog's tail and testicles, at which point the dog attacked Murillo, causing severe injuries.
- The attack occurred hours after church services had concluded, and no church officer was present at the time.
Procedural Posture:
- Norma Murillo, on behalf of her minor child, Rodolpho Joshua Murillo, filed a lawsuit against Vincent Hernandez (the dog owner) and Amor Viviente, Inc. (the church) in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- Following a trial, the court entered a judgment in favor of Murillo against Hernandez for $381,980.54.
- The church and its insurer made a motion for involuntary dismissal of the claims against them.
- The trial court granted the motion for involuntary dismissal, releasing the church and its insurer from liability.
- Murillo (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of the involuntary dismissal 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 property owner liable under a negligence theory for injuries caused by a guest's dog on its property when the owner does not have actual knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities?
Opinions:
Majority - Chehardy, J.
No. A property owner is not liable for injuries caused by a third party's animal unless the owner had actual knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity. While a dog's owner is held to a strict liability standard, a non-owner landlord is only liable under a theory of negligence. To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the landlord had actual knowledge of the animal's dangerous nature. Here, the plaintiff failed to show the church had such knowledge. The pastor had no knowledge the dog was on the premises and had previously found the dog to be friendly. Furthermore, knowledge could not be imputed to the church through its volunteer administrator, Diogenes Reyes, who saw the victim provoke the dog earlier. The court reasoned that Reyes's failure to have the dog removed indicated he did not perceive it as vicious. Finally, the incident occurred hours after official church functions had ended and was not connected to church-related activities, further weakening the claim against the church.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary burden on plaintiffs seeking to hold property owners liable for injuries caused by animals they do not own. The court's decision narrowly defines what constitutes 'actual knowledge' of a vicious propensity, distinguishing it from mere awareness of an animal's presence or even witnessing a child provoke it. This precedent makes it more difficult to impute knowledge from a volunteer or low-level agent to the property owner. The ruling also suggests a demarcation in a landowner's duty of care, distinguishing between official, supervised functions and private activities occurring on another part of the property hours later.
