195 Conn.App. 402
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background:
- On April 16, 2016 Toni Raczkowski was bitten by Diesel, a dog owned by tenant David McFarlane; the attack occurred in part on property owned by landlord Evelyn Garrow.
- Garrow had leased the entire property to McFarlane under a written lease that permitted pets for an extra $50/month and stated: the pet must pose no threat to anyone coming on the property; this is to be determined by the landlord.
- Raczkowski sued Garrow (and McFarlane) alleging Garrow was negligent: she knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities and the lease imposed a duty on Garrow to investigate and to third parties.
- Garrow moved for summary judgment, submitting the lease and affidavits showing McFarlane had exclusive possession and maintained exterior areas; the trial court granted summary judgment, finding the lease did not create a duty to investigate or a duty to third parties and that Garrow retained no control of the premises.
- Raczkowski appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding (1) the lease language unambiguously gave the landlord discretion over pet approval but did not impose an obligation to third parties or to investigate pet behavior, and (2) the tenant had exclusive possession so the landlord owed no premises-duty for the area where the bite occurred.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lease created a contractual duty requiring landlord to investigate tenant's dog and protect third parties | Lease clause that pets "must pose no threat…to be determined by the landlord" imposed a duty to investigate and protect nonparties | Clause simply gives landlord discretion to approve pets for landlord's benefit; it creates no obligation to third parties or duty to investigate | Court: No. Lease unambiguous; it grants approval discretion but does not require investigations or create duties to nonparties |
| Whether landlord reserved control of premises (creating premises liability duty) by retaining pet-approval discretion | Plaintiff: Landlord’s reserved discretion over pets shows retained control, so landlord owed duty to keep areas she controlled reasonably safe | Defendant: Entire property was leased to tenant; affidavits show tenant had exclusive possession and maintained exterior; pet-approval language does not equal retained control | Court: No. Tenant had exclusive possession; no common area or reserved control shown; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Giacalone v. Housing Auth., 306 Conn. 399 (2012) (landlord must address dogs with known vicious tendencies in common areas)
- Bristol v. Ocean State Job Lot Stores of Connecticut, Inc., 284 Conn. 1 (2007) (rules for contract interpretation; if contract is unambiguous, courts look to its four corners)
- Gateway Co. v. DiNoia, 232 Conn. 223 (1995) (test for third-party beneficiary requires parties’ intent to create a direct obligation to the third party)
- Fiorelli v. Gorsky, 120 Conn. App. 298 (2010) (landlord owes duty only as to parts of property over which landlord reserved control)
- Central Coat, Apron & Linen Serv., Inc. v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 136 Conn. 234 (1949) (where entire premises are rented, tenant has exclusive possession and landlord lacks right to enter)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (2015) (when contract language is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence is not considered)