McCraney v. Gibson
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1358
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Calows owned a rental property with a fenced backyard; access to the alley was through a gate that was chained at both ends, with no gaps.
- The Calows planned to replace the fence and gate with a six-foot privacy fence but had not yet done so by the time of the incident.
- Gibson entered a lease for the property (June 6, 2008) permitting one pet; the dog Ceasar was a mix of bullmastiff and boxer.
- Brad told Gibson that the gate was inadequate to contain Ceasar; Gibson but was unaware Ceasar had been escaping.
- On July 20, 2006, McCraney was injured when Ceasar escaped the yard and knocked her down in the adjacent alley.
- McCraney sued the Calows and Gibson; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Calows, which this court affirmed, applying a two-prong control and knowledge test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of landowner for a tenant's dog? | McCraney argues Calows retained control or knew dog’s dangerous propensities. | Calows had no control or knowledge; no duty; summary judgment proper. | Two-prong test applied; no knowledge shown; summary judgment proper for Calows. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morehead v. Deitrich, 932 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (two-prong test for landlord liability; knowledge and control required)
- Yates v. Johnson County Bd. of Comm’rs, 888 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (duty depends on control of premises at time of injury)
- Beta Steel v. Rust, 830 N.E.2d 62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (possession and control as predicate of premises liability)
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) (premises liability related to control/foreseeability)
- Blake v. Dunn Farms, Inc., 413 N.E.2d 560 (Ind. 1980) (injury from animal confinement and landowner duty)