396 P.3d 1193
Idaho2017Background
- Landlords Roman and Natalya Maznik owned rental property managed by Cashflow Management (Cashflow), which screened tenants and collected rent in person monthly.
- Tenants James and Katherine Thomas disclosed a Belgian Shepherd on their 2008 rental application; Cashflow reviewed the application, called the prior landlord, and approved the tenancy; neither Cashflow nor the Mazniks had prior complaints about the dog.
- On January 21, 2014, while plaintiff Whitney Bright visited the Thomas apartment to collect a debt, the Thomas’ dog lunged past the tenant and bit Bright on her arm and leg.
- Bright sued the Thomases and the Mazniks; she obtained a default judgment against the Thomases, and the district court granted summary judgment for the Mazniks; Bright appealed.
- Claims against the Mazniks included negligence per se under Idaho Code §25-2805(2), strict/animal-liability (domestic animals), and other theories (common-law negligence, premises liability, voluntary assumption of duty).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence per se under I.C. §25-2805(2) (harboring a vicious dog) | Bright: Mazniks violated statute by harboring a vicious dog after an unprovoked attack | Mazniks: No statutory predicate—did not "harbor" the dog; tenants kept and controlled the dog per lease | Affirmed: No evidence Mazniks "harbored" the dog; ownership of property alone insufficient to establish harboring |
| Liability for domestic animals (owner/possessor notice of viciousness) | Bright: Mazniks had constructive/actual notice (breed, Cashflow’s rent visits, barking, "Beware of Dog" sign, neighbor affidavit) | Mazniks: No actual or constructive notice; barking was common and not shown to indicate dangerous propensity; no complaints reported | Affirmed: No triable issue—Mazniks lacked actual or constructive notice of dangerous propensity |
| Duty under common-law negligence / premises liability / voluntary assumption of duty | Bright: Mazniks owed duties as landlords/possessors to protect visitors | Mazniks: No duty as to third-party tenant’s animal absent notice or harboring | Affirmed / waived: Court found no cogent appellate argument on these theories; issues treated as waived |
| Evidentiary sufficiency to create triable issues (neighbor affidavit & manager testimony) | Bright: Neighbor and manager observations create disputes of fact about dog’s behavior | Mazniks: Manager testimony showed no knowledge of aggression; neighbor did not report complaints to Cashflow/Mazniks | Affirmed: Testimony did not create material factual dispute on notice or harboring |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. Galey, 733 P.2d 1234 (Idaho 1986) (statutes/regulations may define standard of care and violations may constitute negligence per se)
- Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irr. Dist., 548 P.2d 80 (Idaho 1976) (court may adopt legislative enactment as standard of reasonable conduct)
- Slade v. Smith’s Mgmt. Corp., 808 P.2d 401 (Idaho 1991) (negligence per se conclusively establishes duty and breach elements)
- Braese v. Stinker Stores, Inc., 337 P.3d 602 (Idaho 2014) (possession/notice required to impose liability on proprietor for a visiting dog)
- McClain v. Lewiston Interstate Fair & Racing Ass’n, 104 P. 1015 (Idaho 1909) (owner liable when owner knew or should have known of animal’s vicious tendencies)