Dog
Bite Culpability A Material Issue
|
Homeowners |
Landlord Negligence |
|
Dog
Bite |
|
Wilma Murray
owned two pit bulls at a home that she rented from Richard Hampton. Hampton’s
dwelling was insured under a policy issued by ABC Insurance Company. Carmen
Windham, while walking near that residence, was injured when attacked by
Murray’s dogs. Windham sued both Murray and Hampton for her injuries. The lower
court, after hearing the case, ruled that no liability existed for Murray and
Hampton. The court ruled that insufficient evidence existed that Murray failed
to prevent the escape of the dogs that Murray was not aware of their propensity
for harm and that Hampton had no knowledge that dangerous dogs were present at
the residence. Therefore the lower court granted ABC Insurance Company’s motion
for summary judgment. Windham appealed.
The higher
court reviewed Windham’s assertion that the lower court made a mistake in
granting the insurer’s motion. That court’s focus was on two cases that
examined how case facts aligned with Louisiana’s guidelines regarding the
presence of material facts (which would make it improper to grant summary
judgment).
After
reviewing two relevant cases and examining the facts presented by the disputing
parties, it decided that, due to evidence indicating a prior complaint of both
an escape of the dogs from the home and an incident where the dogs displayed
dangerous behavior, material facts did exist. Specifically, it may have been
the case that the landlord was aware of the dogs’ presence and this issue
should be considered via trial. The landlord’s knowledge was considered
important since a landlord can be held liable for injuries caused by dogs owned
by a tenant.
The lower
court’s decision, granted in favor of Hampton and the insurer was reversed and
remanded for hearing in light of its decision.
Carmen
Windham v. Wilma Murray, Richard Hampton and ABC Insurance Company LACtApp, 4th Circuit No. 2006-CA-1275, May 30,
2007. Reversed 2007 WL 1952385 S.O. 2d