Preserving Precedent: Defending Commercial Landlord Liability Through Recent Victory in High Exposure Dog Bite Case

Claims Alleged: Dog Bite Liability, Commercial Landlord Liability, and Negligence

The Overview:

Seattle Partner Brian Schiewe and his associate recently prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in a high exposure matter involving a vicious dog attack. Brian’s clients were an apartment complex and its property manager. The matter arises out of an unfortunate incident in which a young child was severely injured in a dog bite attack that occurred inside the leased premises of one of the apartment complex’s tenants. In Washington, landlords are not liable for conditions created on the land after the property has been leased. This principle has been applied to animals. In this case, however, Plaintiffs argued that a “special relationship” exists between landlords and tenants such that a landlord has a duty to keep tenants safe. Read on to see how Brian defeated this attempt to expand landlord liability. 

Damages Alleged:

Plaintiff, a minor child, sustained significant injuries to her scalp and face after being attacked by a Pitbull. Plaintiff, along with her parents, alleged personal injuries, including emotional distress damages.

The Background:

Defendants leased an apartment to co-defendant who owned a Pitbull. One evening, Plaintiff’s family visited the co-defendant for dinner and game night at her apartment. The co-defendant’s dog, Chewy, became protective of the co-defendant, and as a result, the co-defendant decided to place Chewy in his kennel. Afterward, Chewy continuously barked, and the co-defendant decided to release him out of his kennel. Within a few minutes upon Chewy’s release from his kennel, the parents of minor Plaintiff were on the balcony when they heard her screaming inside and discovered that Chewy had bitten Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s Theme:

Plaintiffs filed suit against the apartment complex owner and the property manager, as well as the dog owner. Plaintiffs alleged statutory strict liability, common law strict liability, common law negligence, and a novel theory under a premises liability theory. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that a “special relationship” exists between landlords and tenants, which creates a duty to keep tenants safe from foreseeable harm.    

Our Strategy:

Plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal of the statutory and common law strict liability claims – nor did they oppose the negligence claims – because those claims apply only to owners/harborers of animals. Partner Brian Schiewe and his associate argued that it is well-settled in Washington that a landlord cannot be held liable for a tenant’s dog biting a guest that occurred within the leased premises. They further argued that, as a matter of law, landlords do not owe a duty to protect third parties from their tenants’ lawfully owned dangerous animals.   

They further met the special relationship argument head-on by noting that a special relationship has only been applied to instances of third-party criminal conduct, and has never been found to apply to dog bites.     

The Outcome:

The Court ruled from the bench, granted our motion for summary judgment, and dismissed all claims against our clients with prejudice. Although the judge expressed sympathy for Plaintiff, he agreed that no Court in Washington has supported Plaintiff’s theory of liability.  Had the judge ruled the other way, this would have expanded landlord’s liability significantly for pet-related injuries that occur within the leased premises. Please feel free to reach out if you would like to discuss dog bite or landlord liability in Washington.