Kim v. Vivas CA4/1, D078843

In 2014 Joseph and Yolanda Vivas leased their Corona home to their daughter Christal and her husband Raymond, who kept two Boxer dogs on the front lawn.
Tenants were allowed two dogs under the written lease; Joseph and Yolanda visited socially and observed the dogs as friendly and generally confined to the lawn.
On April 2019, Raymond’s unleased dog approached Chung Ho Kim on the adjacent sidewalk; Kim stepped back, fell, and later died from head injuries; Raymond received municipal citations for leash and licensing violations.
Kim’s survivors sued Raymond and the Vivases for negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, and wrongful death; the Vivases moved for summary judgment arguing they owed no duty to Kim.
Trial court granted summary judgment for the Vivases, finding no duty because they neither owned nor kept the dogs, had no actual knowledge of dangerous propensities, and lacked control over the dogs; plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding as a matter of law that landlords in these circumstances do not owe a duty to terminate or refuse renewal of a lease because a tenant allows nondangerous dogs to be off-leash under supervision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a landlord owes a duty to third parties to terminate or refuse renewal of a tenancy because a tenant allows dogs to roam unleashed under the tenant’s supervision	Vivases had actual knowledge tenants allowed dogs off-leash on the leased premises and therefore had power (via lease) to remedy the condition by terminating the tenancy; duty to act existed	No duty: landlords did not own/keep the dogs, lacked control, had no actual knowledge of dangerous propensities, and cannot be vicariously liable for tenant’s negligence	Held: No duty as a matter of law; summary judgment affirmed (landlords not required to terminate/refuse renewal for nondangerous off-leash dogs under supervision)
Whether the presence of unleashed dogs (nonviolent/under supervision) is a dangerous condition imposing premises-liability duty on a landlord	Unleashed dogs on landlord’s premises create a dangerous condition landlord could remedy under lease/control	Presence of unleashed but nondangerous dogs does not establish a dangerous condition that imposes a landlord duty absent actual knowledge of dangerous propensities or control	Held: Not a dangerous condition imposing duty on landlord absent actual knowledge/control; premises-liability fails for lack of duty

Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (establishes multi-factor duty analysis guiding exceptions to the general duty in Civil Code § 1714)
Uccello v. Laudenslayer, 44 Cal.App.3d 504 (Cal. 1975) (landlord may owe duty if actual knowledge of a dangerous animal and power to abate it; actual knowledge required)
Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management, 143 Cal.App.4th 1360 (Cal. 2006) (no landlord duty where no actual knowledge of dog’s dangerous propensities; off-leash sightings alone insufficient)
Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016) (premises-liability principles: possession/control creates duty but duty still governed by general negligence standards)
Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 607 (Cal. 2018) (summary-judgment and duty analysis principles; Rowland factors applicability)
Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 11 Cal.5th 204 (Cal. 2021) (duty is threshold element of negligence; courts resolve duty as question of law)
Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011) (explains Rowland factors and caution in carving exceptions to general duty)
Drake v. Dean, 15 Cal.App.4th 915 (Cal. 1993) (articulates presumption that dogs are tame and not presumed dangerous)
Nava v. McMillan, 123 Cal.App.3d 262 (Cal. 1981) (recognizes cultural importance of pet keeping and hesitancy to impose landlord liability)