HELD: Landlords owe no duty to a visitor when visitor sustained injuries caused by a tenant's dog on the subject rental property.
Three tenants (Gonzalez Sandoval) rented a single-family residence from landlords (Hernandez). The tenants got a pit bull puppy about two years into the tenancy. They notified the landlords and got permission to build a fence in the backyard. Landlords didn't inspect the fence. Saralegui Blanco was at the property for a bible study gathering when the dog somehow got out of the fenced area and caused injury to Saralegui Blanco.
Saralegui Blanco had been to the property at least five times before, and each time, the dog was in the fenced backyard, barking. Hernandez only saw the dog once prior to the incident and had no problems with the dog being there.
Saralegui Blanco sued the tenants and the landlords. The landlords moved for summary judgment to toss the claim against them, and it was granted. Only Saralegui Blanco's claim against the landlords went before the WA Supreme Court on direct review.
In a unanimous opinion, the WA Supreme Court affirmed.
First, citing Frobig v. Gordon, the court held that landlords generally have no duty to protect third parties from a tenant's lawfully owned animal (dangerous or not).
The crux here was the tenants had exclusive physical possession of the property and had full control over the area. The landlords did not possess any portion of the rental premises and ceded any physical control over the property to the tenants. The tenants were the ones who brought the dog on the property - after they already took possession of the premises.
The court noted that a third-party claim would have been possible against a landlord - and perhaps then a genuine issue of material fact - if the landlord retained some control over a portion of the leased premises. That was not the case here.
Next, the premises liability claim failed because a dog is not a dangerous condition on the land. Dangerous conditions are usually physical features on the property, such as a ramp, wooden dock, or natural accumulations of snow/ice. Per deposition, the tenants said there were no prior issues or concerns with the dog escaping or injuring people.
Finally, even though the tenant also claimed the fence was inadequate, the landlords were not liable because landlords are generally not liable for conditions that the tenant created. Here, the tenant made the fence. The landlords only gave permission for the fence after the tenants had possession of the rental premises. Saralegui Blanco did not show that any danger could have been prevented had the landlords inspected the fence.
