TORT LAW — ANIMALS: Court finds Defendant is not liable when the Plaintiff’s dog is responsible for the injury
The plaintiff brought a complaint alleging strict liability under Connecticut General Statutes § 22-357, after…
The plaintiff sued a landlord after she was attacked by landlord’s tenant’s dog, alleging that the landlord knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities and failed to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. The plaintiff further alleged that the lease created a duty on behalf of the landlord to make a “reasonable inquiry” because its terms stated any pet “must pose no threat to anyone coming on the property” as “to be determined by the landlord.”
The court rejected this contention and granted the landlord’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the landlord had no prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities and owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.
Raczkowski v. McFarlane, No. CV 17-6077639 (06/11/18)