 |  |        | Pit Bull by lila on September 18, 2012 @12:12 | | CA-- What is our libility as a LL if we rent to a tenant that has a Pit Bull and the Pit Bull gets out of the fence and bites someone??? | | [ Reply ] [ Return to forum ] | | Re: Pit Bull by A.T.SF (CA) on September 18, 2012 @12:28 | [ Reply ] |   | | Generally that would be a local ordinance. Ck with your city government. | | Re: Pit Bull by Anonymous on September 18, 2012 @12:29 | [ Reply ] | | | | You have some liability because a Pit Bull is a "vicious breed." Normal people do not own these types of breeds. So you have to wonder why someone would have a dog like that. Any animal will cause damage to your property, inside and out. You have to think about that too. Most landlords believe it is just not worth it to rent to people who live with animals...any kind of animal. | Re: Pit Bull by Queen (TX) on March 1, 2013 @13:31 Re: Pit Bull by marie (wi) on March 5, 2013 @10:46 Re: Pit Bull by Nicole (KY) on May 18, 2013 @09:40 | Re: Pit Bull by Katiekate (New York) on September 18, 2012 @12:31 | [ Reply ] | | | | I believe your property insurance will be brought into the lawsuit.Because you allowed a known dangerous breed of dog to be housed on your property...you are at fault as well.I would never allow it. My lease clearly would state that keeping this animal (or any dangerous animal) is a lease violation and subject the tenant to immediate eviction proceedings if they are in breach of that provision.Most property liability insurance policies state quite clearly they will not insure in the case of dangerous animals for this exact reason. A pit bull is a light stick of dynamite...the question isn't IF there is going to be an issue....only where and when. | | Re: Pit Bull by MrDan (Georgia) on September 18, 2012 @13:23 | [ Reply ] | | | | Several court cases this year in Maryland and Kentucky have made landlords responsible for tenants pit bulls. This is a trend across the Nation where the courts have allow the landlord to be sued for the tenants vicious dog.http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/07/pit-bulls-inherently-dangerous-says-maryland-appeals-court/ | Re: Pit Bull by anthony (new york) on February 25, 2014 @16:54 | Re: Pit Bull by sandra on September 18, 2012 @14:17 | [ Reply ] | | | | once i got a prospect with 4 pit bulls, i called my insurance, and my insurance would not cover pit bulls, so i said NO, sorry.i am in nevada and i think it would be clever not to rent to them.now i wonder what happen if thetenants tells you they do not have a dog and after they bring a pit bul without landlord knowing. a lot of tenants lie about animalsbecasue they do not want to pay pet deposit, at least in nevada | Re: Pit Bull by Micah on September 18, 2012 @14:31 Re: Pit Bull by OK-LL on September 18, 2012 @17:08 | Interesting post on CL --it's a "mutt" puppy! by Bunny *M*A*G*I*C* on September 18, 2012 @18:21 | [ Reply ] | | | | Saw an ad for someone looking to rent a place using CL. She posted a pix of her puppy lying in it's back with its head around to one side, showing it's cute baby-puppy belly, saying it's a mutt, she doesn't know how big he will get, etc.It's a PIT BULL. Yeah, maybe she is clueless or trying to come off as clueless, but that's a pit bull puppy, sure as the sky looks blue today.I guess it depends on what your insurance agent tells you about pit bulls and your liability in CA. I'm in CA too and I don't permit pets of any kind, let alone a pit bull or a pit bull mix. | | Re: Pit Bull by LL (CA) on September 18, 2012 @19:13 | [ Reply ] | | | | I received a letter from my insurance company listing that types of dogs they consider "dangerous breeds". They informed me if I have any of the listed breeds at my rental properties, my insurance will be void. In other words, no insurance.When advertising my rentals recently I turned away scores of people wanting to bring pitbulls into the rental. I was honest with them and told them why I would not rent to them. While a few complained, I told them to take it up with the insurance companies. | Re: Pit Bull by anthony (new york) on February 25, 2014 @16:56 | Re: Pit Bull by Anonymous on September 19, 2012 @02:44 | [ Reply ] | | | | Your liability will depend on the pictures the jury will see of the child's face, as well as the medical bills and future plastic surgery the child will need to repair her growing face.And believe me, a good lawyer will find a neighbor that has seen the dog in the rental property's yard over the past several months before the bite.Your liability will cover all of the costs, because it makes more sense to sue the landlord, that has a piece of property than to sue the tenant, who probably doesn't own much except for a nice pitbull.My insurance will drop me if I allow even one of my tenants to have a dog. CA may be different, though. does renter's insurance in CA even offer liability for a dog bite? | | Re: Pit Bull by Kim (GA) on September 19, 2012 @07:38 | [ Reply ] | | | | For what it's worth, we went through this recently with a tenant who got a vicious Chow without our knowledge and in violation of the lease. I found out about the new dog when it attacked me during a repair visit.This is what I learned in two months of research.1. Civil juries and state supreme courts around the U. S. (Maryland, Kentucky, etc) have been recently awarding damages against landlords for injuries caused by their tenants' dogs. It does not seem to matter anymore that the landlord had knowledge of the dog's dangerous tendencies, or indeed, of the dog's existence. The articles I'm reading talk about "premises liability", where the landlord has the burden of knowing that a dangerous condition exists: broken fence, ungated pool, uneven sidewalk, etc. Dogs are now being classified as a threat the landlord has an obligation to know about.2. I called animal control to see what help I might get from them. Answer: none. They would not pick up the dog or even file a report based on the attack on me because there was no blood-blood or saliva-blood contact. The dog scratched my leg badly with it's nail, tore my clothes, and left me bleeding, but that's not enough to file a complaint on the dog in my state. I have read that some landlords have a lease clause stating "if an unauthorized dog is found, landlord has the right to remove it from the premises". This protects the landlord from charges of theft. I asked animal control if they would enforce such a clause if we had one. They said no. They said that was a civil matter, and they won't get in the middle of it. Evidently, I would have the legal right if I had that clause in my lease to take the dog off the property myself (to a shelter?), but what landlord is actually going to do that? I wouldn't try to capture and remove a vicious dog by myself.3. I called our insurance agent to see if renter's insurance would cover liability from dogs if we required it of our tenants. They said no (State Farm). We cannot draw up a renter's insurance policy and ask the tenant to sign. It must be entirely initiated by the tenant. Even if they get insurance, it will not cover attacks by a dangerous dog because it is assumed the tenant knew the dog was aggressive, and therefore the damage is a "deliberate act". 4. Our own landlord insurance won't cover us either because it's assumed we knew about the dog, should have known about the dog, or could have evicted a tenant with a dangerous dog.I had hoped there was a less "nuclear option" than going to eviction court, but there isn't. There is no way in my state to take action only against the dog without pursuing eviction of the entire family.We did serve a cure or quit threatening eviction, and they did get rid of the dog. In future leases, we will likely have a "no pets ever" clause, and it looks like we will have to check the property periodically and enforce it. Our lease with these tenants (our first and only tenants in our former sfh), states "no pets without approval". We did approve the dog they arrived with, a gentle elderly cocker spaniel. Evidently, that dog ran away and they decided it was ok to get the 100 pound aggressive Chow instead. I think no matter how many times you say or write that only specific approved pets are allowed, the tenant will decide that one dog is as good as another and substitute at will.We have pretty much decided no more pets ever. The new dog also did substantial property damage. If you have seen a Pit Bull on the property, you might have to issue a cure or quit. Good luck,Kim | Re: Pit Bull by Freda DeMarco (GA) on September 19, 2012 @17:25 | Re: Pit Bull by LL (CA) on September 19, 2012 @11:34 | [ Reply ] | | | | I should add that in California, at least, some cities are enforcing a "viscious dog" ordinance and banning people from owning/housing dogs of these breeds within city limits. My college town in taking a serious look at enacting such an ordinance because of the problem with these dogs. Many students move into town with all sorts of aggressive dogs or they get them once they arrive, not really understanding the ramifications of owning such a breed, just thinking they're "cool". I will never understand why someone wants to get an animal that can take your life or a body part at a whim. | | Re: Pit Bull by lila on September 20, 2012 @14:45 | [ Reply ] | | | | I Thank everyone for the feed back!! Much appreciated. | Re: Pit Bull by Fred (CA) on April 10, 2013 @18:12 | |    Look-up Associations Attorneys Businesses Rentals Available Rentals Wanted Realty Brokers Landlord Articles Tips & Advice Tenant Histories Other Areas Q&A Forum Free Forms Essential Forms Landlord Tenant Law Join Now Credit Reports About Us Site Help |
