Knapton Ex Rel. E.K. v. Monk, 347 P.3d 1257

Johnson owned a Havre house and leased the downstairs (then whole) residence to the Monks; she continued to store belongings there, receive mail, inspect occasionally, and sometimes stay overnight.
The Monks kept several dogs of pit-bull ancestry and used a 10'x10' kennel; Johnson moved her own dogs off the property when the Monks moved in.
Monks’ dog "Shy" escaped and bit M.K. (an older child) on July 23, 2011; criminal charges followed. On October 13, 2011, Shy escaped again and bit E.K. (plaintiff’s daughter) in the Knaptons’ backyard.
Knapton (on behalf of E.K.) sued the Monks and Johnson; default was entered against the Monks. Johnson moved for summary judgment on negligence (premises liability) and strict liability theories.
The district court granted summary judgment for Johnson, finding no evidence Johnson had "reason to know" the dogs were vicious and that Shy was a mixed breed (not a purebred pit bull) so strict liability theory failed.
On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed: held the record lacked evidence Johnson had reason to know of vicious propensities and there was no basis to adopt strict liability for harboring pit bulls on these facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether landlord (lessor) is liable in negligence/premises liability for tenant’s dogs biting a third party	Knapton: Johnson, as lessor who knew tenant kept dogs and visited the property, owed a duty and "should have known" dogs were vicious; allowing them posed an unreasonable risk	Johnson: No duty — landlord is not keeper; under premises-liability Restatement, she lacked knowledge or reason to know dogs were vicious	Court: Affirmed summary judgment — plaintiff failed to show Johnson had "reason to know" dogs were vicious, so no breach of duty
Whether landlord can be strictly liable because tenant harbored pit bulls (inherently dangerous activity)	Knapton: Courts should treat harboring purebred pit bulls as inherently dangerous; landlords who permit them should be strictly liable for attacks	Johnson: No recognized rule imposing strict liability on landlords for tenant dogs; Shy was a mixed breed and plaintiff offered no proof of purebred status or expert proof that pit bulls are inherently dangerous	Court: Affirmed summary judgment — plaintiff produced no evidence Shy was purebred or that purebred pit bulls are inherently dangerous; no basis to impose strict liability on these facts

Larson-Murphy v. Steiner, 303 Mont. 96 (discussing lessor liability under Restatement § 379A)
Criswell v. Brewer, 228 Mont. 143 (distinguishing keeper liability from premises liability)
Chambers v. City of Helena, 310 Mont. 241 (discussing strict liability and Restatement §§ 519–520 in Montana context)
Vennes for Vennes v. Miller, 287 Mont. 263 (noting nonresident property owner generally not liable for tenant’s dog)
Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627 (imposed strict liability on landlords for tenants’ purebred pit bulls but declined to extend to mixes)