Court Opinion

ID: 9743322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:30:55.287072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:40.541050
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The record estab'lishes a good faith dispute over two material facts: Weaver's control over the area where the attack occurred and his constructive knowledge of Lady's disposition.
Weaver states in his deposition that the Maybriers told him they maintained the property on the north side of their trailer to the creek. Weaver's recollection, however, was that the Maybriers did not mow to the creek but "just inside the initial tree line a little bit," a total of about 80 to 40 feet. If the distance from the Maybriers' trailer to the creek was slightly less than 50 feet and Lady was hooked to a tree on a ten-foot chain fairly close to the creek, Lady easily could have been roaming within the 10-20 foot area Weaver indicates was not maintained by the Maybriers and therefore under his control. To determine that Lady was always on the Maybriers' property, the majority must place greater weight on the evidence offered by the Maybriers, as might a trier of fact rather than a court reviewing a motion for summary judgment.
Likewise, I must disagree with the proposition that a landlord owes no duty to third persons injured by a tenant's dog in the absence of actual knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog. Traditionally, liability for harm caused to an invitee by a condition of the land is imposed when an owner has actual or constructive knowledge of the land's dangerous condition. Hammond v. Allegretti (1974), 262 Ind. 82, 311 N.E.2d 821, 825. Moreover, Indiana embraces a constructive knowledge rule when liability is sought to be imposed against the animal's owner or keeper. Cf. Klenberg v. Russell (1890), 125 Ind. 531, 534, 25 N.E. 596, Burgin v. Tolle (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 763, 766; Alfano v. Stutsman (1984), Ind.App., 471 N.E.2d 1143, 1145. I know of no rationale for departing from this standard in the present case.
The Maybriers walked Lady every evening past the Weaver's home. The dog growled and snarled at passersby. That Weaver did not know of the dog's existence does not resolve the question of whether he should have known of the dog and its dangerous propensities.
I would reverse the summary judgment.