The landlord rented a single-family house to a couple. Before signing the rental agreement, the parties discussed the tenants’ pit bull “Chopper” and the tenants paid an additional $30 per month to keep their pet on the premises. A few months later, a neighbor crossed the street to talk to one of the tenants and Chopper bit the neighbor’s hand. The neighbor sued the tenants and the landlord. As for the landlord, the neighbor alleged that the landlord failed to take reasonable precautions to protect persons in common areas from a dangerous dog. The trial court found in favor of the landlord stating that they did not owe a duty to third parties, because they did not maintain control of any of the common areas on the property and that they had no control over the dog and did not know about Chopper’s vicious propensities.
On appeal, the court affirmed. As a general rule in Iowa, an owner who leases property to another without an agreement to repair is not liable for personal injuries sustained because of an unsafe condition arising on the premises after the tenant takes possession. Thus, the landlords were not liable, in this case, for the injuries caused by the dog. This was a single-family house and the common area exception did not apply in this case. That’s somewhat of a strange result. Courts in numerous states in recent years have held landlords liable along with tenants for injuries caused by pit bulls and rottweilers on a strict liability theory. Courts have also classified such dogs as nuisances and a landlord could be held liable for allowing the tenant to continue to have such dogs on the premises after notice with an injury later resulting. Patterson v. Rank, et al., No. 0-716/10-0566 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2010).