Tracey v. Solesky
2012 WL 1432263, 427 Md. 627, 50 A.3d 1075 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Maryland common law establishes strict liability for owners and landlords for injuries caused by pit bull dogs, where the owner or landlord knows, or has reason to know, of the pit bull's presence on the subject premises.
Facts:
- Dominic Solesky, a young boy, was attacked by a pit bull named Clifford.
- Clifford was owned by a tenant living on property leased from Dorothy Tracey, the landlord.
- The residential lease explicitly allowed the tenant to keep two pit bull dogs on the premises.
- On the day of the attack, Clifford escaped twice from an inadequate pen on the property.
- Clifford attacked at least two boys at different times on the same day, with Dominic Solesky being the second victim.
- As a result of the mauling, Dominic Solesky sustained life-threatening injuries, underwent multiple surgeries, spent seventeen days in the hospital, and a year in rehabilitation.
Procedural Posture:
- The trial court granted a judgment for the defendant landlord (Dorothy Tracey) at the close of the plaintiff's (Dominic Solesky's) case, finding insufficient evidence to present common law negligence to the jury.
- Solesky appealed this decision to the Court of Special Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that the evidence was sufficient to create a valid jury issue regarding the landlord's knowledge of Clifford's dangerousness under then-existing common law standards.
- Both the landlord (Dorothy Tracey, appellant) and Solesky (appellee/cross-petitioner) filed petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (highest court).
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted both petitions for certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should Maryland common law be modified to impose strict liability on owners and landlords for injuries caused by pit bull dogs?
Opinions:
Majority - Dale R. Cathell, J.
Yes, Maryland common law is modified to impose strict liability on owners and landlords for injuries caused by pit bull dogs. The Court reviewed the history of pit bull attacks in Maryland and nationwide, citing numerous prior cases and scientific studies demonstrating the inherent dangerousness of the breed. It concluded that pit bulls, due to their aggressive and vicious nature, powerful jaws, insensitivity to pain, and capacity to inflict serious and often fatal injuries, are inherently dangerous. The Court asserted its authority to modify common law, especially when modern circumstances or increased knowledge warrant a change. The original opinion, filed April 26, 2012, established strict liability for both pit bulls and 'cross-bred pit bulls.' However, upon a motion for reconsideration, the Court issued an Order on August 21, 2012, amending the opinions to delete all references to 'cross-breds,' 'pit bull mix,' or 'cross-bred pit bull mix,' thereby narrowing the application of strict liability to purebred pit bulls only. This strict liability standard applies when an owner or landlord (who has the right and/or opportunity to prohibit such dogs on leased premises) knows, or has reason to know, of the pit bull's presence on the premises. It eliminates the need to prove that the specific pit bull involved was previously known to be dangerous, as the danger is deemed inherent in the breed itself.
Dissenting - Greene, J.
No, the common law should not be modified to impose breed-specific strict liability for pit bull dogs. The dissenting justices argued that the majority created an "unworkable rule" by declaring pit bulls inherently dangerous as a matter of law without sufficient factual predicate in the record. They questioned the judicial notice of disputed dog bite statistics and breed characteristics, emphasizing that such matters are more appropriately addressed by the legislature due to their complex social nature and the difficulties in defining what constitutes a 'pit bull' or 'mixed-breed pit bull.' The dissent stressed the principle of stare decisis, arguing there was no compelling reason to overturn well-settled common law that required knowledge of a particular dog's vicious propensities, not merely its breed. They cited studies questioning the accuracy of dog bite statistics and the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation, suggesting that factors like socialization, training, and owner behavior are more relevant than breed.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant departure from traditional common law in Maryland, which previously required proof of an animal's known vicious propensities (the 'one-bite rule'). By establishing breed-specific strict liability for pit bulls, the Court dramatically alters the legal landscape for their owners and landlords, imposing a heightened duty of care. This decision signals the judiciary's willingness to modify common law in response to perceived public safety concerns regarding specific breeds, potentially influencing other jurisdictions to consider similar approaches. It may also lead to legislative action to either codify or overturn this judicial pronouncement, and could have wide-ranging impacts on animal ownership, insurance, and rental policies.
