Tenant Bitten by Other Tenant's Pit Bull

Tenant sued landlord after being bitten by another tenant's pit bull while walking through a common area of the building. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial, claiming that it wasn't responsible for tenant's injuries. Tenant asked the court to decide the case without a trial, arguing that pit bulls were unquestionably dangerous and that landlord had allowed the other tenant to keep the dog in violation of the ''no pet'' rule. The court ruled for tenant, citing various articles on the viciousness of pit bulls. Landlord appealed. The appeals court ruled for landlord, finding that a trial was needed. The lower court incorrectly assumed that all pit bulls are inherently vicious. Other scientific evidence suggests that, at most, pit bulls possess the potential to be trained to behave viciously. Also, the evidence didn't prove that landlord had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities. There were questions of fact concerning this particular dog's viciousness and whether landlord should have known about the danger and done something about it.

Carter v. Metro North Assocs.: NYLJ, p. 27, col. 1 (11/27/98) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Tom, JP, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe, JJ)