Turnbow v. Wye Electric, Inc.
883 So.2d 469, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 2168, 2004 WL 2101841 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord is not liable in negligence for injuries caused by a tenant's animal unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal's vicious propensities. A landlord does not have a general duty to inspect the leased premises to determine if a tenant has a dog or to ascertain its temperament.
Facts:
- Wye Electric, Inc. owned a residential property and rented it to several tenants, including William Hicks.
- The tenants kept several dogs at the residence, including a Bullmastiff and multiple Pitbulls.
- On August 7, 2001, Joshua Turnbow, a minor, was visiting the tenants at the rental property.
- While visiting, Joshua Turnbow was bitten by the tenants' Bullmastiff.
- Employees of Wye Electric had visited the property on occasion to discuss rent payments.
- At least one employee had seen a dog on the property but did not know its breed and did not witness any aggressive behavior.
- A manager of a nearby Wye Electric warehouse had also seen a dog on the property but never observed it exhibiting any vicious propensities.
- No one had ever complained to Wye Electric about the dogs being dangerous.
Procedural Posture:
- Earl and Wanda Turnbow, on behalf of their minor son, filed a lawsuit against the tenants and their landlord, Wye Electric, Inc., in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana (a trial court).
- Wye Electric filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it lacked the required actual knowledge of the dog's viciousness to be held liable.
- The trial court granted Wye Electric's motion for summary judgment.
- The Turnbows filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The Turnbows (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit (an intermediate appellate court), with Wye Electric as the appellee.
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 have a legal duty and can they be held negligent for injuries caused by a tenant's dog when the landlord did not have actual knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities?
Opinions:
Majority - Lolley, J.
No, a landlord cannot be held negligent for injuries caused by a tenant's dog without actual knowledge of its vicious propensities. While a dog owner is held to a strict liability standard, a non-owner landlord's liability must be analyzed under negligence principles. To find a landlord negligent for injuries caused by a tenant's animal, the plaintiff must prove the landlord had actual knowledge of the animal's dangerous nature. The court explicitly rejected a 'knew or should have known' standard, holding that a landlord has no affirmative duty to inspect the premises to discover tenants' animals or to investigate the temperament of any animals they are aware of. Because the Turnbows failed to produce any evidence that Wye Electric employees had actual knowledge that the Bullmastiff was vicious, Wye Electric breached no duty and cannot be held liable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a high evidentiary bar for holding landlords liable for torts committed by their tenants' animals in Louisiana. By explicitly requiring 'actual knowledge' of a vicious propensity and rejecting a 'constructive knowledge' ('should have known') standard, the court significantly limits a landlord's potential liability. This ruling protects landlords from responsibility for dangers of which they are not directly aware, placing the burden of proof squarely on the plaintiff to show the landlord was specifically informed of an animal's dangerous nature. It effectively shields landlords from a duty to proactively police their tenants' choice of pets.
