Tenant Attacked by Pit Bull

Facts: Elderly tenant was attacked by another tenant's pit bull dog in a common area of landlord's building. The dog knocked tenant down and bit her in the face. Tenant sued landlord for negligence, claiming that pit bull dogs were inherently dangerous and that landlord was aware of the dog's presence in the building. But landlord claimed it wasn't responsible for the dog's actions since there had been no prior complaints about any attacks by this particular dog. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. Tenant claimed that landlord should have known that a pit bull was, by nature, dangerous. Court: Landlord loses. The court found that it was common knowledge that pit bull dogs were inherently dangerous, were bred to fight, couldn't be controlled even while on a leash, and made unprovoked attacks on other animals and people. The court pointed out that there were numerous statistical reports and articles on this subject, and noted that effective Sept. 1, 1998, New York law would define a ''dangerous dog'' as one that attacks and injures or kills a person without justification or poses an immediate threat to public safety. The court ruled in tenant's favor without a trial, finding landlord responsible for permitting an inherently dangerous dog to remain in the apartment complex, particularly in light of the building's policy barring dogs.

Carter v. Metro North Assocs.: NYLJ, p. 29, col. 2 (4/27/98) (Sup. Ct. NY; Miller, J)