Sedlacek v. Belmonte Properties, LLC
16 N.E.3d 878
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On May 2, 2011, Sedlacek was injured on a public sidewalk when a Rottweiler kept at a rental house ran through its yard fence and attacked him. The Rottweiler belonged to Rebekah Parker and was being kept by tenants (the Raymonds) in violation of the lease.
- The Raymonds leased the property from Belmonte Properties; the lease prohibited aggressive breeds and included a pet addendum permitting the tenants’ Labrador (but not the Rottweiler). The Labrador was described as friendly.
- Tenants reported the gate’s latch was broken when they moved in (2008) and claim Belmonte representatives said they would fix it but did not; tenants later used a bungee cord and supervised the Rottweiler in the yard. Belmonte representatives deny promising repairs.
- Belmonte told the tenants to remove the Rottweiler after seeing it and believing it was aggressive; they did not confirm its removal before the attack and learned of the injury only later.
- Sedlacek sued Belmonte; Belmonte moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty. The trial court granted summary judgment, relying on Solorio (1st Dist.). Sedlacek appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Belmonte owed a duty to Sedlacek for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog off the leased premises | Belmonte knew the gate was broken, promised to repair it, saw the dangerous Rottweiler, and by promising repairs assumed a duty to prevent escapes that injured third parties | Landlord does not owe a duty for injuries off the leased premises absent a specific undertaking; any promise related to the friendly Labrador and not to containing an unauthorized, dangerous dog | No duty. Landlord not liable; promise to repair did not amount to an assumed duty to contain the Rottweiler, particularly because there was no promise made after Belmonte knew the Rottweiler was present |
Key Cases Cited
- Klitzka v. Hellios, 348 Ill. App. 3d 594 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (landlord not liable for tenant’s dangerous animal on leased premises absent landlord control or notice of dangerous propensity)
- Bourgonje v. Machev, 362 Ill. App. 3d 984 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (extent of duty under voluntary-undertaking doctrine is limited to scope of the undertaking)
- Uccello v. Laudenslayer, 118 Cal. Rptr. 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (landlord may owe duty where landlord has right to retake possession and knows of vicious propensities)
- Wright v. Schum, 781 P.2d 1142 (Nev. 1989) (landlord who takes affirmative steps and promises to control a dangerous dog may assume a duty under voluntary-undertaking principles)
- Wiseman v. Hallahan, 945 P.2d 945 (Nev. 1997) (landowner liable only if affirmative voluntary undertaking; mere acquiescence is insufficient)