Dog Bite

NEW YORK August 6, 2001

Questions before the court:

Facts of the case:

Baisi was a tenant in an apartment complex owned by Gonda, and was bitten by a pit bull. Another tenant in the building kept the dog in violation of his lease.

Baisi sued Gonda for injuries resulting from the dog bite, arguing the landlord should have known a vicious dog was in the complex because everyone else in the neighborhood knew.

Gonda claimed he rarely visited the building and didn't know about the dog. He did admit to once being in the apartment building making repairs and noticing a dog, but did not ask who owned it.

Trial court finds for landlord:

Gonda requested a judgement without trial, Based on his ignorance to the dog's presence, and the lower court granted it.

Tenant appealed.

DECISION: Afirmed.

Gonda was not liable for Baisi's in­juries because he showed he had no knowledge of the dog's presence in the building. Baisi did not prove Gonda had notice a dog was being harbored in the apartment building. Even though the dog's presence was widely known throughout the neighborhood, without knowledge of its presence, Gonda owed no duty to prevent Baisi's expo­sure to the dangers of the dog. It was reasonable for Gonda to remain ignorant to the dog's presence; knowledge could not be implied under those circumstances.

DISSENTING:

In a dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court of New York stated: "It is not reasonable for a landlord to remain ignorant of a dangerous condition on the premises when that condition is widely known throughout the neighborhood."