$982,000 verdict against landlord for negligence in dog knock-down involving postman
California tort law specifies that the property owner must have prior actual knowledge about the dangerous nature of a dog living on the property in order to be strictly liable for damages sustained by a person attacked by that dog. This standard has been revisited several times in recent California appellate rulings, and these rulings for the most part have been very supportive of this standard, which in turn make these cases difficult for plaintiff attorneys arguing strict liability against a defendant-landlord.
However, in one recent dog bite case involving a defendant-landlord, tried in Los Angeles Superior Court in January 2010, the plaintiff won his case using arguments based on premises liability. The lawsuit involved a postal carrier who was knocked down by a German Shepherd dog who broke loose through a gate from the subject property in 2006. The postal carrier had been delivering mail to the subject property for many years, and was aware of the presence of this dog, and testified he always avoided the dog. On the day of the incident, the dog broke through the gate and aggressively leaped at the postal carrier, who protected himself by placing his mail satchel between himself and the dog. The plaintiff was not bitten, but broke his wrist in the fall. Total meds were $24,000 and loss of earnings were $16,000. The insurance company offered $20,000 to settle the matter.
At trial, premises liability was argued based on the makeshift manner in which the gate containing the dog was maintained. Evidence was presented showing that the landlord knew about the defective gate, but did not make any attempt to repair it. The landlord denied knowing about the presence of the dog, despite the length of time the dog lived on his property, despite the length of time in which the landlord owned the property, and despite the allegation that he, or his office staff, knew that the dog needed to be put away when workmen came to the property.
Animal behavior testimony from Richard Polsky, PhD, described the nature of protective, territorial aggressive responding in German Shepherd dogs, the consistency of this kind of aggressive behavioral pattern, and how these dogs are often used for protection. Other factors that may have aided the plaintiff's case was the fact that the owner of the dog, who also resided on the property, was the manager of the apartment complex where the incident occurred (hence, vicarious liability), the area where the dog was maintained was highly visible being located in the front of the property and adjacent to the sidewalk, and the fact that there were inconsistencies in the defendant's testimony, thus lessening the credibility of the main defense argument; namely, the landlord had no knowledge of the presence of the dog on his property.
The jury did not believe this, and further felt that the dog was aggressive by nature, and the gate was defective. The jury apportioned 12% fault to the nonsolvent dog owner, 88% fault to the property owner, and awarded $982,000. 
Contact Info:
Animal Behavior Counseling Services, Inc.
2288 Manning Ave.
Los Angeles, California 90064
Telephone: (310) 474-3776
Nationwide: (800) 605-2227
email