In
the case of Gallo v. Precise Moments
Academy, No. 904-Civil-2018 (C.P. Monroe Co. Jan. 4, 2019 Harlacher Sibum, J.),
Judge Jennifer Harlacher Sibum of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas ruled
that a landlord was not liable under state dog law or agency principles where a tenant's dog bit a child at a leased daycare facility.
The
court found that the Plaintiff failed to allege specific facts to support any claims of negligence or
punitive damages against the landlord.
According
to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs were parents of a minor child who attended a
daycare facility. A dog owned by one of
the tenants who ran the facility bit the minor child while she was at the
daycare resulting injuries to the child’s face.
In
addition to suing the tenants, the Plaintiffs sued the landlord who owned the
property on which the daycare facility was located. The Plaintiffs alleged that the landlord
negligently and recklessly maintained dangerous dogs on the daycare premises
despite the substantial risk of injury to children. The case came before the court by way of the
landlord’s Preliminary Objections.
Initially,
the landlord asserted that the dog law in Pennsylvania did not apply given that
the landlord was not an “owner” of the dog as required for the application of that statute which required dog owners to confine, secure or otherwise control
their dogs.
The
court agreed with the landowner Defendant in this regard and noted that prior
case law had held that a landlord out-of-possession, without more, was not
considered the owner of a tenant’s dog under that dog law. The court stated that the Plaintiffs presented
no other facts in support of its legal conclusion assertions in the Complaint that
the landlord housed and kept the dog.
The
court also agreed with the landlord Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiffs’
allegations of agency should be stricken because there were no facts to support
allegations of vicarious liability. The
court noted that the Complaint did not identify any agency relationship between
the landlord and its tenants.
Judge Harlacher Sibum additionally found that the catch-all phrasing of negligence in the Plaintiff’s
Complaint against the landlords was insufficient under Pennsylvania law.
The
court also agreed with the landlord Defendants’ contention that the Plaintiffs’
claims for punitive damages should be stricken for insufficient specificity
where the Plaintiff failed to allege that the landlord acted with any bad
motive. The court reiterated that the
landlord did not have any control over the daycare premises or any authority to
regulate the tenant's pets.
As such,
Judge Harlacher Sibum concluded that the landlord’s conduct was not reckless or
wanton as a matter of law. Accordingly,
the Preliminary Objections filed by the out-of-possession landlord Defendant
were sustained and the claims against it dismissed.
Anyone
wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.