Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Negligence
66. In an action by the child against the landlord, will the child be likely to prevail?
A child was bitten by a dog while playing in a fenced-in common area of an apartment complex owned by a landlord. The child was the guest of a tenant living in the complex, and the dog was owned by another tenant. The owner of the dog knew that the dog had a propensity to bite, but the landlord did not have any notice of the dog's vicious propensities.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. The possessor of a vicious dog may be strictly liable to those injured by the dog, but the landlord here is not in possession of the dog. Moreover, the liability, where it exists, is limited to cases in which the possessor has reason to know that the dog is unusually dangerous.
B is incorrect. A landlord may have a nondelegable duty to protect persons who come upon the land from dangerous conditions of the property, such as cracked walks and broken stairs, but the presence of a dog that belongs to a tenant is not such a condition. Also the landlord's duty is only to act reasonably, and there is no evidence here that the landlord or anyone for whom he was responsible acted unreasonably.
D is incorrect. The answer correctly states that the landlord will prevail, but it misstates the reasoning for this conclusion. A landlord does owe a duty to those who are foreseeably on the land, including guests of his tenants when they are in common areas. But the landlord's duty is only to act reasonably. The landlord will not be liable because there is no evidence that he acted unreasonably.