Is a landlord liable for injuries to a motorist on an adjacent roadway caused by a tenant’s livestock known to the landlord to be fenced in on the property?

Facts: A landlord rents a single family residence (SFR) to a tenant. The tenant acquires livestock and builds an enclosure. The landlord is aware of the livestock and has observed the enclosure and the property fencing. Livestock escapes the property, enters the adjacent roadway and is struck by a vehicle resulting in injuries to the motorist. The motorist makes a demand on the landlord to recover money losses which the landlord rejects.

Claim: The motorist claims the landlord is liable for their injuries caused by the livestock since the landlord knew about the livestock, had viewed the enclosure and fencing and had a duty of care to protect off-property individuals from dangerous conditions on the property.

Counterclaim: The landlord claims they are not liable for the motorist’s injuries since the landlord has no duty of care to off-property individuals.

Holding: A California appeals court holds the landlord is not liable for the motorist’s injuries caused by the tenant’s livestock in the roadway adjacent to the landlord’s property since the landlord owes no duty of care to others outside the property without actual knowledge the livestock were insufficiently secured. [Estate of St. John v. Schaeffler (2025) 109 CA5th 1146]

Estate of St. John v. Schaeffler

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