158 Conn.App. 98
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Landlord owned 6-12 Woodlawn Circle in East Hartford; Mitchell, a tenant, had a dog in violation of the lease but landlord knew of it and took no action.
- Dog, a mixed breed pit bull, allegedly known to have dangerous propensities; first attack occurred May 2011 on Mitchell’s dog against a granddaughter of a resident.
- On June 15, 2011, Mitchell’s dog escaped and attacked Dawn Charles, a nontenant, on Woodlawn Circle near 2 Woodlawn Circle, causing injuries.
- Plaintiff filed a complaint Jan 31, 2012 alleging premises liability negligence; defendant moved for summary judgment July 1, 2013 asserting the attack occurred off the defendant’s premises.
- Court granted summary judgment Oct 23, 2013, rejecting plaintiff’s theories under Restatement § 379A and common-law premises liability; plaintiff moved to reargue; appeal filed Jan 21, 2014; appellate court addressed timeliness and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the appeal from the summary judgment | Charles argues timely appeal from judgment on summary judgment. | Sitaras argues appeal untimely; only § 63-1 denial was reviewable. | Untimely, but court exercised discretion to reach merits. |
| Whether landlord owed duty for injuries off the premises | Charles asserts landlord liability for dangerous dog off premises. | Landlord owes no duty for harm occurring off premises it does not control. | No duty; judgment for defendant affirmed. |
| Whether location of the incident was within landlord's control | Evidence could place attack near landlord’s property; issue of control present. | Attack occurred off premises; no control over adjoining land. | No genuine issue of control; helpful to grant summary judgment. |
| Whether § 379A Restatement supports landlord liability | Landlord responsible for known dangerous dog under § 379A. | Plaintiff failed to show knowledge of dog’s dangerous propensities; abandoned. | Abandoned argument; not pursued on appeal. |
| Whether § 22-357 dog-bite statute applies to landlord | Owner/keeper liability under dog-bite statute. | Not owner/keeper; statute not applicable; plaintiff abandoned. | Abandoned; not necessary to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247 (2002) (duty elements in negligence; landlord's duty to control premises)
- Sweeney v. Friends of Hammonasset, 140 Conn. App. 40 (2013) (duty and foreseeability in premises liability)
- Giacalone v. Housing Authority, 306 Conn. 399 (2012) (landlord's duty to mitigate dangers from pets on premises)
- Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn. App. 252 (2003) (premises liability; control over adjacent land limits duty)
- Nelson v. Dettmer, 305 Conn. 654 (2012) (timing of appeal when a motion to reargue extends period)
- Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 226 Conn. 757 (1993) (waiver of untimeliness when not challenged timely)
- Fiorelli v. Gorsky, 120 Conn. App. 298 (2010) (summary judgment standard and material facts)
- Hospital of Central Connecticut v. Neurosurgical Associates, P.C., 139 Conn. App. 778 (2012) (opposing party must show genuine issues of material fact)