Is a residential landlord liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dogs when the landlord is unaware the dogs are potentially violent?

In re: Fraser v. Farvid

Facts: A landlord rents a single family residence (SFR) to a tenant. The tenant acquires dogs without notifying the landlord. A neighbor advises the landlord about the “guard dogs” though the landlord has no personal experience with the dogs. The dogs escape from the property and injure a pedestrian. The pedestrian makes a demand on the landlord to recover money losses.

Claim: The pedestrian claims the landlord is responsible for the attack since the landlord had been informed about the existence of “guard dogs” on the rented property, did not investigate the possible hazard they present and guard dogs can be assumed to be vicious.

Counterclaim: The landlord claims they are not liable for the pedestrian’s injuries since the landlord had no knowledge the dogs were vicious.

Holding: A California appeals court holds the residential landlord is not liable for the pedestrian’s losses caused by the tenant’s dogs since the landlord had no actual knowledge of the aggressiveness of the dogs, and only commercial guard dogs can be assumed to be vicious. [Fraser v. Farvid (2024) 99 CA5th 760]

Editor’s note – The pedestrian injured by the tenant’s dogs reached a settlement with the tenant. Moral of the story for this litigation: always require the tenant to have tenant insurance, naming the landlord.

Fraser v. Farvid

https://journal.firsttuesday.us/is-a-landlord-liable-for-injury-to-an-employee-of-a-tenant-when-the-landlord-had-no-knowledge-hazardous-materials-were-stored-on-the-leased-premises/75437/