Carter v. Metro North Associates, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate
Div., Ist Dept., No. 1873 (1998)
Questions before the court:
Does a no pet policy make
landlords libel if tenant’s have pets? Can court assume without proof that pitbulls
are vicious by nature?
Facts of the case:
A 72 years old woman named Carter
lived in a apartment community owned by Metro North Associates. She was walking along a
path at the complex when she heard a dog's "vicious" barking and saw another
tenant with a pitbull on a leash. According to Carter, the dog's owner said the dog was
behaving in this manner because children playing in the area were "aggravating"
it.
Moments later, the dog jumped onto Carter and bit her
face. She said she remembered feeling a strong, muscular presence that knocked her into a
security cabin. She went to the emergency room for treatment.
Carter sued Metro North, claiming her landlord was
responsible because its employees knew about the dog and failed to enforce the complex's
"no pets" provision. One of the landlord's employees said he had seen the
tenant's son walk the dog about five times before and that the dog appeared strong and had
big teeth. This employee and another both said they knew tenants weren't allowed to have
pets.
The landlord asked the court for judgment without a
trial, claiming it wasn't responsible. For a pet owner or landlord to be found liable
without proof of negligence, the injured person had to prove both that the animal had
"vicious propensities" and that the landlord knew or should have known the dog
was vicious.
Trial court finds for tenant
The court awarded the tenant
judgment. According to the court, there was no need for evidence concerning the particular
dog in question because the court recognized on its own that pitbulls were a vicious
breed. Courts could accept without proof matters "of common and general
knowledge" that were "well established and authoritatively settled." The
court relied on a number of authorities in asserting the viciousness of pitbulls.
Landlord appeals
The landlord appealed, arguing the
court should have awarded it not Carter - judgement, because there was no evidence showing
the dog had ever attacked anyone else or had previously displayed any vicious behavior.
DECISION: Reversed
Judgment was awarded to the landlord. A
majority of the appellate judges said that the trial court should have awarded the
landlord, not the tenant, judgment. They wrote that the tenant wasn't entitled to a trial
because she failed to prove the dog that bit her was vicious. The trial court should not
have simply accepted that pitbulls were vicious by nature. While many sources said
pitbull, were vicious by nature, many other experts believed that, at most, pitbulls had
the potential to be trained to behave viciously.
Even if Carter had shown that the specific dog in
question was vicious, nothing showed that the landlord knew or should have known about the
dog's vicious nature. The dog owner's admission that children playing in the area had
aggravated the dog didn't show the landlord knew the dog was vicious. Nor was there
evidence that the landlord's employees knew the dog lived in the complex support the
"inferential leap" to the assumption that the landlord knew the dog tended to be
vicious.
A dissenting judge agreed the trial court shouldn't have
accepted that the dog in question was vicious simply because it was a pitbull, but
believed a trial was needed to determine whether the landlord knew the dog was vicious.
If it did, then the landlord would have a duty to protect other residents from a dangerous
animal on the premises.
Also see: Vavosa v. Stiles, 632 N.YS.2d 791.
Gibbs
v. Grenadier Realty Corp., 569 N.Y.S.2d 76.