Dog Bites Boy, Trial Court Bites Landlord

Bitten boy sues neighbor, property manager and property owner

Braun v. York Properties Inc., Court of Appeals of Michigan, Nos. 184796, 190771 & 190956 (1998)

Question before the court:

Do landlords voluntarily assume a duty to enforce their own rules?

Facts of the case:

      A 12-year-old boy named Braun was seriously injured while he was playing inside the neighbor's mobile home, when his neighbor’s dog, a Labrador, bit him.

      Braun sued the neighbor, who settled out of court for $100,000. He also sued the property management company and the property owners (managers) of the mobile home park.

      According to Braun’s lawyers, the landlords negligently failed to enforce the park's dog regulations. The park had detailed rules governing tenants' possession of dogs, including breed and size restrictions. The lawyers contended that the neighbor's dog was somewhat larger than should have been allowed under the park rules.

      The landlords asked the court to dismiss Braun's claim. The landlords argued that they had no duty to protect tenants from a neighbor's dog.

Court finds for tenant; awards $273,000 from landlords

       The court denied the landlord's request to dismiss, and awarded Braun $50,000 in damages, $100,000 for future medical expenses, and more than $123,000 for future damages.

Landlord Appealed

      The landlords appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that Braun's lawyers failed to show they had a duty to protect Braun from a neighbor's dog.

      Braun’s lawyers admitted that no one, not the boy, his parents, nor the dog's owner, much less the landlords, knew the dog was dangerous. However, they argued that by creating rules governing tenants' dogs, including breed and size restrictions, the landlords voluntarily assumed a duty to use reasonable care to enforce its rules to protect third parties from tenants' dogs.

DECISION: Reversed.

      The trial court should have dismissed the claims against the landlords.

      The landlords couldn't be liable if they didn't know about the dog's vicious propensities and didn't have control of the premises or the ability to remove the dog. The landlords' power to evict the neighbor wasn't enough to establish "control" over the dog, even if they could have evicted the dog before Braun was injured.

      The landlords didn't create a duty to protect Braun by creating regulations governing dogs and then failing to enforce those regulations. The mangers didn't know the dog was dangerous, so it was no more foreseeable a neighbor’s dog would harm Braun than any other dog. Braun's injuries were related to the manager's failure to enforce the rules only in the sense that if the landlords had enforced them, the dog wouldn't have been in the mobile home due to the trailer park's dog size restrictions.

      The landlords' failure to enforce the size restrictions was not a blatant disregard of its tenants' safety because the landlords did not know the dog was dangerous, and the dog's size wasn't necessarily related to its propensity to bite. (Labradors have a good reputation, even for apartment living.) Although the size restrictions might somehow protect others from harm, their purpose was primarily to protect against harm to the premises, not to third parties.