A property owner or property management company (both referred to as "landlord") can be held liable for a dog attack, but under limited circumstances:
- The dog belonged to the landlord. This applies in states that have a dog bite statute.
- The landlord was harboring the dog. This applies in states that have a dog bite statute that covers harborers in addition to dog owners.
- The landlord owned or harbored the dog and knew or should have known that it was vicious. This is the law in all states.
- The landlord knew or should have known that the dog was vicious and that it either lived or was harbored on the landlord's property. The landlord was not an owner or harborer of the dog. Exception: in California the landlord had to actually know that the dog was vicious; "should have known" is not the law in California.
- The landlord knew or should have known that (a) the dog was owned or harbored by someone on the landlord's property, (b) the dog was of sufficient size to cause injuries if it got off the property, (c) the fences and gates of the property were defective and a dog could penetrate them, and (d) the dog would not have gotten off the property and the accident would not have happened if the landlord had properly fixed the fences and gates.
- The landlord did something else which was unlawful or negligent and caused the accident to happen.
If the landlord did not own or harbor the dog, the fourth and fifth grounds (above) will create liability only if the landlord had the legal right and enough time to either impose conditions of confinement on the dog or evict the tenant.
- Liability for bites by tenants' dogs upon property owned by the landlord
- Liability for bites upon adjacent property
- The discussion of premises liability in Negligence
- Recreational immunity
- ALR articles for attorneys