|
Holcomb v. Colonial Associates, L.L.C. |
This North Carolina case involves the issue of whether a landlord can be held liable for negligence when his tenant's dogs injure a third party where a landlord has agreed by contract to remove "undesirable" dogs. Under the terms of the lease, the tenant, Olson, could keep one Rottweiler dog on the property. It was also stipulated that the landlord could require removal of any "undesirable" pets with 48-hour's notice. The dogs in the instant action attacked a contractor who was making an estimate on some of the rental homes, and, according to testimony, had committed two prior attacks. The court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred, in that the plaintiff was not required to show Colonial was an owner or keeper of the dogs in order to show Colonial was negligent; that requirement is limited only to strict liability actions. As a result, the court found Colonial failed to use ordinary care by failing to require the defendant Olson to restrain his Rottweiler dogs, or remove them from the premises when the defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, from the dogs' past conduct, that they were likely, if not restrained, to do an act from which a reasonable person could foresee. Of particular importance to the court, was the lease provision, which the court felt contractually obligated the landlord to retain control over defendant's dogs.
|
|
Howle v. Aqua Illinois, Inc. |
As the result of a dog bite on the defendant’s rental property, the plaintiff suffered a torn cheek and irreparable damage to her ear. The plaintiff therefore attempted to recover damages from the defendant on the common law theory of negligence and through Illinois’ Animal Control Act. The trial court, however, dismissed the Animal Control Act claim and, later, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim. Upon appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, though it stated a motion for summary judgment was more appropriate then the motion to dismiss for the Animal Control Act claim. |
|
IL - Insurance - 5/143.10e. Home property insurance; dog breeds |
This law was amended in 2023 to prohibit homeowner insurance discrimination based on the breed of dog. The law states that, with respect to homeowner's insurance policies and renter's insurance policies issued, renewed, modified, altered, or amended on or after the effective date this act, no insurer shall refuse to issue or renew, cancel, charge or impose an increased premium or rate for a policy or contract, or exclude, limit, restrict, or reduce coverage under a policy or contract based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds. |
|
In re Kenna Homes Cooperative Corporation |
The owners of a cooperative unit kept a dog in their dwelling despite a no pets policy. There was, however, an exception in the policy for service animals, and the Jessups argued that the small dog they kept was necessary due to various medical problems they had, including arthritis and depression. The housing authority denied the request, stating that only animals certified for the particular disability qualify as a "service animal." The West Virginia Court of Appeals held that a housing authority may require that a service animal be properly trained without violating federal law.
|
|
Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp. |
Tenant brought action under the Federal Fair Housing Act alleging that her landlord failed to reasonably accommodate her mental disability by refusing to allow her to keep companion animals in her rental unit. Tenant put forth evidence establishing that the animals lessened the effects of her mental disability by providing companionship. The housing authority argued that only service dogs are a reasonable accommodation. The court rejected the housing authority's argument, holding that animals other than service animal can be a reasonable accommodation for a disability. Also, the court noted that whether an accommodation is reasonable is a fact-specific inquiry, requiring an analysis of the burdens imposed on the housing authority and the benefits to the disabled person.
|
|
Juan Enrique Martín Pendavis Pflucker v. Cañete, Exp No. 00949-2022-PA/TC - Peru |
This case is about pet ownership and a person’s constitutional rights within vacation rental spaces. The majority opinion reasoned that the rental space was permitted to prohibit pets, as it was doing so as an expression of the cohabitors’ shared wills, and therefore, does not violate the plaintiff’s rights as he willingly entered the property. The court noted how service animals are working animals, and not just “pets,” whose presence is required for their owners to enjoy the full accessibility of the property in question, and cannot be prohibited. The dissenting opinions discussed topics of animals as property, constitutional freedoms, and animal welfare, and argued that the plaintiff’s claim should be founded.
|
|
Juan Enrique Martín Pendavis Pflucker v. Cañete, Exp No. 00949-2022-PA/TC - Peru |
Este caso trata de la tenencia de mascotas y de los derechos constitucionales de las personas en los espacios de alquiler vacacional. La opinión mayoritaria razonó que el espacio de alquiler estaba autorizado a prohibir los animales de compañía, ya que lo hacía como expresión de la voluntad compartida de los cohabitantes, y por tanto, no violaba los derechos del demandante, ya que éste entró voluntariamente en la propiedad. El tribunal señaló que los animales de servicio son animales de trabajo, y no simples "mascotas", cuya presencia es necesaria para que sus propietarios disfruten de la plena accesibilidad del inmueble en cuestión, y no pueden ser prohibidos. Las opiniones discrepantes trataron los temas de los animales como propiedad, las libertades constitucionales y el bienestar de los animales, y argumentaron que la demanda del demandante debía ser fundada. |
|
Judgement 01413-2017-PA/TC, 2016, animals and horizontal property - Peru |
The plaintiff brought this Amparo suit against the building owners where he rented his apartment for a new regulation prohibiting pets in the building and not allowing them to take the elevator. The plaintiff claims that this recent ban on pets violates his property rights, as well as his rights to the free development of personality, freedom of movement, and the principle of non-discrimination. He also raised issues of health and safety for pets with regard to not being allowed to take the elevator. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and discussed various regulations that would serve as a compromise between the parties. Additionally, the Owner's Association was instructed to revoke any warnings or sanctions imposed on the plaintiff under the application of the regulation and to apply the ruling to guide dogs. Finally, the court determined that this ruling would constitute binding legal precedent.
|
|
Klitzka ex rel. Teutonico v. Hellios |
In this Illinois case, the Appellate Court considered, as a matter of first impression, under what circumstances does a landlord owe a duty of care to his tenant's invitees to prevent injury from an attack by an animal kept by the tenant on the leased premises? A minor invitee (Alexus) of the tenants was bitten by tenants' dog and brought a negligence action against residential landlords. It was undisputed that the tenants held exclusive control over the premises and paid $700 a month in rent to the landlords. The Appellate Court held that even if landlords knew tenants' dog was dangerous, the landlords had no duty to protect the tenants' invitee because landlords retained no control over the leased premises where injury occurred. "Here, the tenants' affirmative conduct of bringing the dog into the living space of the home, an area over which the landlords had no control, is what might have been the proximate cause of Alexus' injuries."
|
|
Labor Commission v. FCS Community Management |
This case concerns the Utah Anti-discrimination and Labor Division's (UALD) determination that a homeowner's association's three-month delay in responding to a member's request for reasonable accommodation to keep chickens on their property as assistance animals for a child with anxiety and PTSD violated the Utah Fair Housing Act. The trial court found that this three month delay was a constructive denial of the request, because under the Utah Fair Housing Act a housing provider must participate in an interactive process to evaluate and discuss the request for accommodation, and no such interactive dialogue or interactive process took place. On appeal, the court found that the three month delay in responding to the request was not unreasonably long, especially considering that the HOA had to review the status of chickens as support animals, chicken waste runoff, and possibility of rodent complaints during this time. The court of appeals also found that the members were not harmed by the HOA's alleged delay, since they were still allowed to keep the chickens at this time. The court of appeals then reversed the trial court's holding granting the members damages, fees, and other relief. |
