Eric Gross and Adrianne Gross v. Elizabeth Turner and Antonio Flores
195 A.3d 654
| Vt. | 2018Background
- On Jan. 15, 2016, three dogs owned by tenants (the Pearos) ran out of their rented house and attacked plaintiff Eric Gross’s dog; Gross’s gloved hand was grabbed and his shoulder was dislocated.
- The Pearos rented the property from landlord Elizabeth Turner, who knew the family and their dogs but had never observed aggressive behavior and did not know of prior incidents.
- Antonio Flores (a social guest invited to wait inside) had allowed his children to interact with the dogs previously and described them as high-energy but not vicious.
- Plaintiffs sued Turner (landlord) and Flores (guest) for negligence; Pearos defaulted on a third‑party indemnity claim by Flores.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Turner and Flores, holding plaintiffs failed to show either defendant owed a duty to control the dogs; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landlord (Turner) owed duty to third parties outside leased premises for tenant’s dogs | Turner permitted tenants to keep dogs on unfenced property and failed to investigate/require fence; under Restatement §379A landlord liable if she knew or had reason to know dogs were unreasonably dangerous | Turner had no actual or constructive knowledge dogs were vicious; mere permission to keep dogs (or breed alone) does not impose duty to investigate | No duty; summary judgment affirmed — plaintiffs produced no evidence Turner knew or had reason to know dogs posed an unreasonable risk |
| Whether Turner liable for public nuisance under Restatement §837 | Tenant’s dogs created public safety risk; Turner should have known and acted | Keeping ordinary domestic dogs is not necessarily a nuisance; no evidence Turner knew or should have known dogs would necessarily cause public nuisance | No nuisance duty; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether guest (Flores) was a “keeper” and thus owed duty to control dogs | Flores voluntarily cared for dogs (would let them out, give water) so he assumed keeper’s responsibilities and breached duty by allowing son to open door | Even if considered a keeper, Flores had no knowledge that dogs were dangerous; no evidence he knew of prior incidents or that dogs were likely to attack | No duty: summary judgment affirmed because no evidence Flores knew dogs were dangerous |
| Whether Flores voluntarily undertook to restrain dogs after they escaped (negligent undertaking) | Testimony suggests someone called to corral dogs and they were briefly out of view; Flores effectively undertook control and negligently let them escape | No evidence Flores had dogs under control or ever undertook to restrain them; facts are too speculative | No negligent‑undertaking duty shown; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Quechee Lakes Landowners’ Ass’n, 170 Vt. 25, 742 A.2d 734 (Vt. 1999) (summary judgment standard)
- Martin v. Christman, 196 Vt. 536, 99 A.3d 1008 (Vt. 2014) (ordinary domestic dogs are not inherently unreasonably dangerous)
- Hillier v. Noble, 142 Vt. 552, 458 A.2d 1101 (Vt. 1983) (liability depends on individual animal’s propensities)
- Davis v. Bedell, 123 Vt. 441, 194 A.2d 67 (Vt. 1963) (owner/keeper liable only if they knew or had reason to know animal was a probable source of danger)
- Plummer v. Ricker, 71 Vt. 114, 41 A. 1045 (Vt. 1898) (definition of keeper involves exercising custody, care, and control of the animal)