Paw Talk - Pet Forums banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am looking for a new place to rent. I have two Presa Canarios and a landlord showed me this article and said it is why he is afraid to rent to a person that owns large dogs.
I am curious if I am reading this right. It basically says the landlord is liable if the dog attacks someone and I understand that part, but it says the landlord is liable because the landlord is considered the 'owner' of my dogs.
Am I reading this wrong, since the judge could have only used the world liable instead of saying the LL is an owner, or does this judgement pretty much mean that a landlord could walk on my property and sell my dogs if he wanted since legally he is their 'owner'
The Supreme Court granted discretionary review and focused on the language of KRS 258.235(4) and KRS 258.095(5) in order to determine the landlord’s liability. The dog-bite liability statute, KRS 258.235(4), creates liability for the owner of a dog who causes damage to person, property, or livestock. KRS 258.095(5) defines a dog owner as “every person having a right of property in the dog and every person who keeps or harbors the dog, or has it in his care, or permits it to remain on or about the premises owned or occupied by him.”
The Supreme Court in Benningfield explained that under these statutes a landlord is an owner of a tenant’s dog on the leased property when he or she allows the tenant to keep the dog on or about the property.
 

·
Herp Nerd
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
The wording of the law pertains to liability, not direct ownership. So your landlord can't turn around and sell your dog, claiming it is his... but for the purpose of the law, which is only in Kentucky as far as I know, your landlord can be held liable for any injury your dog causes on his property, as the person who allows the dog to reside there.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top