Opinion
No. CV 06-500 20 04 S
September 9, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On March 12, 2008, the court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Defendant Irene Adams. The narrow issue the court decided was "whether Connecticut allows a common-law claim predicated on premises liability to proceed against a landowner who does not own, harbor, or otherwise keep the vicious animal." Oyola v. Sutton, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV 065002004 (March 17, 2008, Hiller, J.) (45 Conn. L. Rptr. 198, 199). Based on Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn.App. 252, 815 A.2d 263 (2003), the court declined to extend liability to lessors for a dog bite to a third party, which occurred on the lessor's property and the lessor knew, or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities, but failed to take appropriate protective measures. Id., 200. The court, therefore, declined to extend a duty to nonowners or nonkeepers and granted the defendant Irene Adams' motion for summary judgment. Id.
In Stokes the plaintiff filed a common-law negligence action against the landlords after she was bitten by a tenant's dog on a public sidewalk. The court stated that "[a]t common law, only an owner or keeper of a domestic animal owed a duty of reasonable care to others . . . Simply stated, to be liable, one must have control of the animal. Under the common law of this state, it has been held that liability for injuries committed by a vicious animal is grounded in negligence . . . It is the duty of the owner of such an animal, having knowledge of its vicious propensities, to give notice of the propensities or to restrain the animal, and that failure to do so is negligence that makes the owner liable for its consequences." (Citations omitted.) Stokes v. Lyddy, 75 Conn.App. 252, 265-66, 815 A.2d 263 (2003). The court held that "in light of the case law of other jurisdictions, our limited case law on the matter and as a matter of public policy, we do not find it appropriate to extend the duty to nonowners or nonkeepers." Id., 279.
After this decision, on March 25, 2008, the Supreme Court decided Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 286 Conn. 152, 943 A.2d 391 (2008), in which the court indicated that a common-law action for negligence may be maintained against a landlord as a result of an attack on a guest by a tenant's dog even if the landlord was not an "owner" or "keeper" of the dog. In the present case, the defendant Irene Adams is the landlord and mother of the defendant Irene Sutton, who is the tenant and owner of the dog. As in Auster, the landlord in the present case is neither the owner nor the keeper of the dog.
The court in Auster agreed with the Appellate Court "that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was the keeper of the dog. This is not to say, of course, that the defendant may not have been negligent in failing to take reasonable precautions to protect against the attack that occurred in the present case, particularly in view of the fact that Salinas' dog previously had bitten a church employee. We conclude only that the evidence was insufficient to hold the defendant strictly liable to the plaintiff as a keeper of the dog under § 22-357. On retrial, the plaintiff will have the opportunity to establish her common-law negligence claim against the defendant." (Emphasis added.) Id., 164-65.
The court, thus, recognized that there exists a common-law negligence cause of action against the landlord/owner of the land separate and distinct from that against an owner or keeper of the dog. In light of this decision, the court opens and vacates its prior decision and judgment and denies the motion for summary judgment.