2010AP1925 Ladewig v. Tremmel

Listen to this article

Torts
Dog bites; landlords

A landlord is not liable for an attack by a dog belonging to a tenant.

“Smaxwell dictates that in a negligence action against a landlord involving a dog bite by a dog owned by the landlord’s tenant, if the landlord could not be deemed an ‘owner’ or ‘keeper,’ then there can be no liability. That is the case here. To be an owner or keeper of a dog, one must have dominion over, control over, or custody of a dog. See Smaxwell, 274 Wis. 2d 278, ¶¶46, 47. Under the logic of Gonzales and Malone, the ability of a landlord to enforce a lease provision is a type of control that a landlord exercises over the premises, not over a tenant’s dog on the premises. Gonzales held that ownership and control of the premises did not create a duty on the part of the owner of the premises to third parties for injuries created by a tenant’s dog. Gonzales, 68 Wis. 2d at 158. Malone applied this rule to reject the plaintiffs’ argument that the landlord should be held liable for failing to enforce a ‘no pets rule,’ because the landlord was not an owner or keeper of the dog. See Malone, 217 Wis. 2d at 752-53, 757. Accordingly, we conclude that the landlords here did not gain dominion or control over the tenants’ dog by virtue of having included in the lease a provision that prohibited the tenants from keeping dogs believed to be vicious on the leased property. See id. at 754-55. Because the landlords are neither owners nor keepers of the dog, they cannot be held liable for the dog’s actions under Wisconsin law.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP1925 Ladewig v. Tremmel

Dist. IV, Wood County, Potter, J., Blanchard, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Grischke, Alan E., Wausau; For Respondent: Gebert, Timothy Steven, Wisconsin Rapids; Shull, John R., Jr., Wausau; Hibbard Boero, Lisa Suzanne, Marshfield

Full Text