SOLESKY v. Tracey
17 A.3d 718
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Soleskys sued Tracey (landlord) after tenants' two pit bulls attacked a 10-year-old, claim dismissed for the dog owners in bankruptcy.
- Lease initially allowed pit bulls; renewal lease omitted the no-vicious-pet clause and stated landlord not responsible for damages.
- January 23, 2007 inspection showed two pit bulls and a visible backyard pen; renewal lease renewed with two pit bulls and liability clause favoring tenant.
- April 28, 2007 attack: male pit bull escaped pen and injured Dominic Solesky in the alley behind Tracey's property.
- Circuit court denied sanctions for deposition-spoilation; trial proceeded; Tracey won at close of plaintiffs' case via judgment for lack of evidence of knowledge or control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions for deposition nonappearance were correct | Soleskys claim court erred denying sanctions | Tracey excused due to health; sanctions improper | No abuse of discretion; sanctions not warranted |
| Whether spoliation sanctions were warranted | Tracey destroyed or failed to produce documents/photos | No proven destruction with material relevance; no nexus shown | Not warranted; no evidence of nexus to prejudice |
| Whether landlord owed duty to third parties for dangerous animals | Knowledge and control by Tracey over dogs and renewal lease created duty | No evidence Tracey had control over tenants' animals or knowledge of viciousness of these particular dogs | Yes, a jury could find duty based on knowledge and control under Shields/Matthews |
| Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to submit negligence/strict liability claims to the jury | Circumstantial evidence showed knowledge and potential danger; control via lease renewal and inspection | Evidence insufficient to prove knowledge or control over the particular dogs | Sufficient to survive judgment at close of plaintiffs' case; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Shields v. Wagman, 350 Md. 666 (1998) (landlord knowledge and control may create duty for dangerous dogs)
- Matthews v. Amberwood Associates, Ltd., 351 Md. 544 (1998) (extreme danger of pit bulls; landlord control via no-pets clause; foreseeability)
- Ward v. Hartley, 168 Md.App. 209 (2006) (mere breed is insufficient; need knowledge, danger, and landlord control)
- Moura v. Randall, 119 Md.App. 632 (1998) (circumstantial evidence can raise inference of knowledge of dangerous propensities)
- Moore v. Myers, 161 Md.App. 349 (2005) (circumstantial evidence and dog danger context in Maryland negligence)