Opinion ID: 3184676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Common Law Framework

Text: ¶ 20. A landowner who fails to exercise reasonable care with respect to the conduct of others on the land or the condition of the premises may be liable to third parties for injuries resulting from the conduct or condition where the landowner knows or should have known of the conduct, and has the ability to exercise control over that conduct or condition. Several related common law rules reinforce this overarching principle, which explains most court decisions involving a landowner’s duty in cases involving harm to third parties as a result of animals escaping from premises. ¶ 21. First and foremost, a landowner (or one who possesses property) that permits another to use the land is, if present, under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent that person from creating an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to another if the landowner: “(a) knows or has reason to know that [the landowner] has the ability to control the third person, and (b) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 318 (1965). As noted in the Restatement: The mere fact that the possessor of . . . land permits a third person to . . . conduct an activity upon the land is not regarded as sufficient to make the possessor liable for the manner in which the third person . . . carries on the activity. It is, however, enough to require the possessor to exercise with reasonable care the ability which the possession gives [the possessor] to control the third person’s use or activity when [the possessor] knows or should know that its exercise is necessary to prevent harm to others. Id., cmt. a. This rule applies where the possessor of land is present when the activity is being carried on with the possessor’s permission, and when, therefore, the possessor “has not only the ability to control the conduct of the third person as possessor, but also the opportunity to do so.” Id., cmt. b. The possessor’s duty to exercise reasonable care to control the conduct of third 10 persons for the protection of others applies not only when the possessor knows of the need to do so, but also when a reasonable person should know. Id., cmt. c. If the activity permitted on the land is dangerous only under particular conditions and in particular situations, the actor is required to exercise vigilance if there is a reasonable probability that such a condition or situation will arise. Id. In this setting, where the landowner knows of the unreasonable risk and has the ability to exercise control, the landowner does have a duty of care to third parties outside the premises who are injured as a result of activities on the premises. ¶ 22. Second, in the context of leased premises, generally the landlord is not liable to others outside of the land for physical harm caused by any dangerous condition on the land that arises after the tenant takes possession, except where a landowner has agreed to make repairs. Id. § 377 (1965). This general rule reflects the reality that, unless a landowner has contracted to repair conditions on the premises, the landowner generally yields control over the condition of the premises, and over activities conducted on the premises, upon transferring possession. See, e.g., W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 63 (4th ed. 1978) (explaining that landlord is not generally liable to people injured on land or those outside of it for conditions that develop or are created by tenant, or activities carried on by tenant, after possession has been transferred because landlord surrenders both possession and control of land to lessee, retaining only reversionary interest). ¶ 23. However, a landlord is subject to liability for physical harm to people outside the land caused by activities of the tenant or others on the land after the landlord transfers possession if, but only if: “(a) the [landowner] at the time of the lease consented to such activity or knew that it would be carried on, and (b) the [landowner] knew or had reason to know that it would unavoidably involve such an unreasonable risk, or that special precautions necessary to safety would not be taken.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 379A; see also Restatement (Second) of Prop., Land. & Ten. § 18.4 (1977) (setting forth same rule as reflected in Restatement (Second) of Torts). In other words, if a landowner leases property to another knowing that the tenant is 11 going to carry on an activity that involves an unreasonable risk, and the landowner consents to that conduct, then the landlord has a duty to third parties to exercise reasonable care. The landowner cannot avoid this duty by disclaiming responsibility for the tenant’s planned activities in the lease; such a clause has no effect on the landowner’s duty to third persons outside of the land who are not a party to the agreement. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 379A, cmt. d. This section of the Restatement recognizes that at the time the landowner transfers possession of property to another, knowing that the tenant’s activities will pose an unreasonable risk to third parties outside the property, the landowner is liable for any damages resulting from the landowner’s failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid the unreasonable risk.2 ¶ 24. Significantly, the relevant knowledge on the part of the landowner may involve not only the nature of the activity the tenant intends to carry on, but the way in which the tenant will carry it out. Take, for example, the illustrations in the Restatement: if a landowner leases property for use as a baseball park knowing that there is an unreasonable risk that in the ordinary course of a baseball game balls will be hit into the public highway in a way that is dangerous to those using it, the landowner may be liable to a driver on the public highway for injuries resulting from an errant ball. See Id., cmt. c, illus. 1. However, if, at the time the landowner conveys possession of the property, the baseball diamond is laid out so that there is no risk that a ball will be hit into the highway, and the tenant subsequently reorients the baseball diamond, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of errant balls striking passing motorists, the landowner will not be liable. Id., cmt. c, illus. 2. The underlying activity—baseball—is the same in both situations. What distinguishes the landowner’s liability in the two illustrations is (1) the way in 2 Likewise, a landowner who transfers possession to a tenant in a condition which the landowner realizes, or should realize, will involve unreasonable risk of physical harm to others outside of the land is subject to the same liability for that physical harm as if the landowner had remained in possession. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 379. At the time the landowner transfers possession, the landowner has both actual and constructive knowledge of the unreasonable risk, along with the legal ability to take steps to mitigate it. 12 which the baseball is played—i.e., the orientation of the diamond; and (2) landowner’s knowledge at the time of the conveyance. In the first illustration, at the time of the conveyance the landowner knows or has reason to believe that the baseball will be played in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to others outside the property. In contrast, in the second illustration the landowner has no reason to know of an unreasonable risk at the time the landowner relinquishes possession, and the associated control, of the property. In both cases, the activity to be conducted on the property is the same: baseball—an activity that in and of itself is not particularly dangerous to third parties. The critical question is not whether, at the time of conveyance, the landowner knows or has reason to know that the sport of baseball creates an unreasonable risk. Rather, the question is whether the landowner knows or has reason to know that baseball will be played on the property in a way that poses an unreasonable risk to third parties outside of the property. ¶ 25. Understood together, these various rules of blackletter law reinforce the principle that the existence of a duty on the part of a landowner to exercise reasonable care to avoid harm to third parties outside the land resulting from activities conducted upon the land depends on the landowner’s knowledge of the activities and ability to exercise control with respect to those activities. This understanding helps explain the otherwise apparently disparate case law involving injuries caused by escaped animals. ¶ 26. In a case on all fours with the present case, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict against a corporation for injuries to a motorist caused by a horse in the middle of a highway where the corporation had allowed an employee to keep a horse on the company’s property. Misterek v. Wash. Mineral Prods., Inc., 531 P.2d 805, 806 (Wash. 1975) (en banc). After concluding that various statutes did not displace the common law, and eschewing the need to explore common law rules specifically relating to animals, the court concluded that the case could be resolved “upon the general principles of negligence.” Id. at 13 807. The court relied on the general principle that one must maintain property so as not to injure those using the adjacent highway. Id. at 807. Although the company had conditioned the employee’s use of the property to pasture his horse upon the employee repairing and maintaining the fence, there was substantial evidence that the company knew that the fences needed attention, that the horses were on its land, and that the land adjoined a public highway. Id. On these bases, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict against the company. Id. ¶ 27. Wandering livestock cases involving landowners and tenants, while not directly applicable here for reasons set forth more fully below, also support the general principle that a landowner’s duty depends on the landowner’s knowledge and control of the premises or activities giving rise to an unreasonable danger. In Larson-Murphy v. Steiner, the Montana Supreme Court considered whether a landowner could be held liable for damages resulting from a tenant’s escaped bull, which was struck by a motorist traveling on the adjacent highway. 2000 MT 334, 15 P.3d 1205, superseded by statute as stated in Knapton ex rel. E.K.v. Monk, 2015 MT 11, ¶ 13 n.2, 347 P.3d 1257. The court acknowledged the general rule that a landowner is not responsible to people injured on or off the land for conditions that develop or are created by the tenant after possession has been transferred. Larson-Murphy v. Steiner, 2000 MT 334, ¶ 103. However, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 379A, it also noted that a landowner is liable for physical harm to people off the land caused by activities of the tenant or others on the land if, at the time of the lease: (1) the landowner consents to the activity or has reason to know that it will be carried on; and (2) the landowner knows or has reason to know that the activity would unavoidably involve an unreasonable risk or that special precautions necessary to safety would not be taken. Id. ¶ 104. The court noted the related common law doctrine that a lessor is subject to liability for a nuisance caused by an activity carried upon the land while the lease continues if the lessor would be liable for carrying on the activity, at the time of the lease the lessor consents to the activity or knows it will be carried on, and the lessor knows or should know that the 14 activity will necessarily involve or is already causing a nuisance. Id. Because the landowner in Larson-Murphy knew that the tenants would be keeping livestock, including bulls, and was aware of the potential risks involved as evidenced by the landowner keeping livestock himself and requiring the tenant to carry liability insurance in anticipation of any damages the livestock may cause, the court reversed the trial court’s award of summary judgment to the landowner. 2000 MT 334, ¶ 108. Significantly, the court rejected the argument that because the lease agreement required the tenants to maintain the fences and take whatever precautions were necessary for keeping the animals, the landowner was not liable to a third party. Id. ¶ 107. The court explained, “While such contractual obligations may give [landowner] a right to indemnification from [tenants], we conclude that an injured third party . . . is not party to such an agreement, and thus [landowner] cannot avoid liability if a legal duty was owed.” Id. ¶ 108. ¶ 28. Similarly, in Gonzales v. Bierman, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed an award of summary judgment to a landowner in a claim by plaintiffs who were injured when their car struck a horse owned by the landowner’s tenant. 773 P.2d 629, 630 (Colo. App. 1989). In reaching its conclusion, the court cited § 379A and pointed to evidence that when the landowners transferred possession of the land to the tenant, they knew that the tenant kept horses on the land and knew or had reason to know that the fences on the land were in poor condition. Id. ¶ 29. In contrast, the Iowa Court of Appeals in Byers v. Evans considered a claim against a landowner by an individual who was injured when his car hit a swine that had escaped from pens on the adjacent land. 436 N.W.2d 654, 655 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988). The tenant had constructed the pens and fences at issue after taking possession of the property pursuant to the lease. Id. at 656. The court explained that when the landowner transferred possession of the property, the landowner surrendered possession and control along with the associated responsibility to people injured on or off the land. Id. Because the plaintiffs had not alleged facts showing that at the time the landowner transferred possession the landowner knew or had 15 reason to know that tenants’ activities would unavoidably involve such an unreasonable risk, or that special precautions necessary to safety would not be taken, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action. Id. at 657; see also Edwards v. Chadwick, 321 A.2d 792, 799800 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1974) (where landowner conveyed land to tenant with sound fencing in which horses could be contained, trial court properly instructed jury that landowner could be liable only if landowner knew or had reason to know, when transferring property pursuant to lease, that intended use of farm by tenant would unavoidably involve unreasonable risk of harm to users of highway); Flint v. Snow, 439 P.2d 610, 611 (Or. 1968) (landowner could be liable to injured driver if jury found that he retained some control over pasture from which horse escaped by breaking through fence). ¶ 30. Likewise, courts’ rulings in cases in which a tenant’s dog has bitten a third party outside the leased property have generally turned on an analysis of what the landowner knew, and what degree of control the landowner could exercise. For example, in Park v. Hoffard the Oregon Supreme Court in a unanimous decision considered whether a landowner was liable for injuries to a child on a neighboring property caused by the tenant’s dog. 847 P.2d 852, 852-53 (Or. 1993) (en banc). Reviewing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 379A, as well as its own related caselaw, the court concluded that a landowner can be liable for such injuries if two conditions are satisfied: (1) the landlord, at the time of entering into a lease, at the time of renewing a lease or a periodic tenancy, or at any time during a tenancy at will or other tenancy that the landlord is able to terminate unilaterally, consents to such activity or knows that it will be carried on, and (2) the landlord knows or has reason to know that the activity will unavoidably involve an unreasonable risk of harm to persons off the rental property. Id. at 855. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a jury could find that the landlord consented to or knew that tenant had a dog that would unavoidably involve an unreasonable risk of harm to people off the rental property based on evidence that: (1) the tenancy was a month-to16 month tenancy; (2) the landlord was aware of the sign posted on the rental property that warned of a dangerous dog; and (3) the landlord was aware that the tenant’s dog had previously bitten another child.3 Id. at 856. The court accordingly affirmed the intermediate court’s reversal of the trial court’s award of summary judgment. Id. ¶ 31. Similarly, in Strunk v. Zoltanski, the New York Court of Appeals recognized that in such cases “to establish liability it must be shown that the [landowner] had knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog and had control of the premises or other capability to remove or confine the animal.” 468 N.E.2d 13, 15 (N.Y. 1984) (citation omitted). In affirming the trial court’s denial of summary judgement against the landowner, the court cited evidence that the landlord knew that the tenant planned to keep a vicious dog on the property at the time landlord rented the property to tenant and failed to exercise reasonable care in connection with that risk. Id. at 15-16.4 3 In contrast to livestock, whose escape from enclosures and presence on public highways can pose serious danger to the traveling public without regard to a particular animal’s vicious propensities, the escape of a dog from private property is not generally, in and of itself, considered dangerous. See, e.g., Trujillo v. Carrasco, 318 S.W.3d 455, 460 (Tex. App. 2010) (noting not reasonably foreseeable that escaped Labrador dog would destroy fence and kill neighbor’s roosters based solely on dog’s escape). The dog-bite cases require consideration of an additional element—the landowner’s knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. Despite this distinction, these cases reinforce that the landowner’s (1) knowledge; and (2) ability to exercise control (generally by declining to renew or continue the lease) are the critical factors in the analysis pursuant to Restatement (Second) § 379A. 4 See also Uccello v. Laudenslayer, 118 Cal. Rptr. 741, 748 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (holding that because landowner knew of vicious propensities of tenant’s dog and could have abated danger by terminating tenancy upon two weeks’ notice, minor child bitten by dog had cognizable claim); Vigil v. Payne, 725 P.2d 1155, 1157 (Colo. App. 1986) (reversing trial court’s dismissal of claim against landowners by minor plaintiff who had been attacked by tenants’ dogs on leased premises because allegations that landowners had knowledge of vicious actions of tenants’ dogs before entering into lease was sufficient to establish duty of care); Stokes .v Lyddy, 815 A.2d 263, 280-81 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003) (affirming summary judgment for landowners where uncontroverted evidence was landowners did not know about tenants’ intention to keep dog, tenants never sought permission to do so, and there was no evidence that at inception of lease landowner knew of tenants’ dangerous activity or had reason to know that it would involve unreasonable risk); Solesky v. Tracey, 17 A.3d 718, 739-40 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) (reversing award of summary judgment to landowner in suit on behalf of child injured off 17 ¶ 32. In all of the above cases, the critical question was: What knowledge of the risk did the landowner have at the time the landowner had the ability to take action to avoid or mitigate the risk?