The landlord should have the power to abate such nuisance in its own interest as well as that of the other tenants. Its failure to do so in a reasonable manner should be actionable. The editor would not find liability on these facts, and concurs that it would be appropriate to find no liability as a matter of law. There was an inadequate showing that the landlord had knowledge of an animal that present an immediate danger to safety. But where there is such danger known to the landlord, the landlord should have the power and duty to act.
Tenants reasonably expect the landlord to control behavior of other tenants to that extent.
The court here inserted language that may accord with the editor's view. It indicated that it was disinclined to impose greater responsibility upon the landlord to police the residents of its complex than the city had. City ordinance did not prohibit the keeping of pitbulls, but did require them to be muzzled. If a future landlord has reason to believe that a pet constitutes dog was a public nuisance by city standards, the opinion here may not absolve it of liability. Landlord's letter forbidding tenant's unruly boyfriend from entering the premises constituted a breach of the tenant's rights under the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.