Katherine Higgins v. Shawn Bailey and Suzan Bailey
2021 VT 62
| Vt. | 2021Background:
- Landlords Shawn and Suzan Bailey (living out of state) leased a Marshfield house to Skyler Bagalio and expressly permitted him to keep a dog; the written lease allowed a dog.
- Before the attack, landlords had no actual knowledge that the dog had previously bitten anyone; the prior tenant who referred Bagalio likewise lacked detailed knowledge of the dog’s history.
- The realtor (acting for landlords) observed signs a dog lived in the house (scratched door casings) and heard a dog that sounded “tough and loud,” but did not see the dog or know its history or breed.
- Plaintiff Katherine Higgins, a neighbor and guest, was seriously injured on the leased premises by the tenant’s American Pitbull Terrier; the dog had earlier bitten a child before the tenancy (a reason the tenant moved).
- Plaintiff sued the landlords for negligence; the trial court granted summary judgment for the landlords, holding no duty without notice of dangerous propensities; plaintiff appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Higgins' Argument | Bailey's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a landlord owes a common-law duty to a tenant’s guest injured on the leased premises by the tenant’s dog | Landlord has a general duty of care to the public/guests that includes a duty to inquire into a tenant’s animal before leasing | No duty arises when landlord lacks actual knowledge of the animal’s dangerous propensities | Duty is a legal question; landlord cannot be liable absent actual knowledge of dangerous propensities; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the realtor’s observations (agent knowledge) impute notice to landlords | Realtor’s observations (scratched doorframes, loud dog) put landlords on constructive notice via agency | Realtor lacked specific knowledge of prior bites or dangerous propensities; observations insufficient to show dangerousness | Realtor did not have knowledge of dangerous propensities; observations insufficient to impute notice |
| Whether a municipal ordinance (defining “owner or keeper”) creates liability for the landlords | Marshfield ordinance makes anyone who "permits" an animal on premises an "owner or keeper," creating liability | Landlords lacked control or ability to prevent the attack; ordinance does not create a private tort remedy here | Court doubts ordinance applies to these remote landlords and, in any event, it does not supply a private tort claim absent an underlying common-law duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. Turner, 195 A.3d 654 (Vt. 2018) (landlord without knowledge that a tenant’s dog posed an unreasonable risk has no duty to persons outside the leased property)
- LeClair v. LeClair, 169 A.3d 743 (Vt. 2017) (existence of duty is primarily a legal question separable from breach/standard of care)
- Sheldon v. Ruggiero, 202 A.3d 241 (Vt. 2018) (safety statutes may establish standard of care but do not by themselves create a private cause of action)
- Stewart ex rel. Stewart v. Aldrich, 788 A.2d 603 (Me. 2002) (landlord generally not liable for dangerous conditions arising after tenant takes exclusive possession)
- Matthews v. Amberwood Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 719 A.2d 119 (Md. 1998) (landlord may owe duty where lease retains control over pets and landlord has knowledge of dangerous animal)