Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitnegligencesummary judgmentleaseduty of care
trialsummary judgmentleaseduty of care

Related Cases

Lucier v. Impact Recreation, Ltd., 864 A.2d 635
View Case »
Spicer v. Osunkoya, 32 A.3d 347
View Case »
Kuligoski v. Brattleboro Retreat, 203 Vt. 328, 156 A.3d 436, 2016 VT 54A
View Case »
Hitachi Credit America Corp. v. Signet Bank, 166 F.3d 614
View Case »
Greene v. Esplanade Venture Partnership, 36 N.Y.3d 513, 168 N.E.3d 827, 144 N.Y.S.3d 654, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 01092
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fields v. Hayden, 81 A.3d 367, 2013 ME 93

Facts

In July 2009, the Haydens leased a single-family dwelling to Wayne and Susan Perry, who were allowed to keep pets but were responsible for any disturbances caused by them. The Perrys' dog attacked Fields on three occasions, prompting her to file a negligence claim against the Haydens. The Haydens advised the Perrys to keep the dog leashed after the first incident, but the dog continued to cause problems, leading to Fields' lawsuit.

In July 2009, the Haydens leased a single-family dwelling exclusively to Wayne Perry and Susan Perry. Pursuant to the one-year written lease agreement between the Haydens and the Perrys, the Perrys were permitted to keep pets at the property, but they would be responsible for any property damage or disturbance caused by their pets.

Issue

Did the Haydens owe a duty of care to Fields regarding the dog attacks, given their lack of control over the dog?

Did the Haydens owe a duty of care to Fields regarding the dog attacks, given their lack of control over the dog?

Rule

A person owes a duty of care to another from any unreasonable risk of harm posed by the foreseeable actions of a dog only if that dog is in the person's possession or under the person's control.

A person owes a duty of care to another from any unreasonable risk of harm posed by the foreseeable actions of a dog only if that dog is in the person's possession or under the person's control.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the Haydens had any possession or control over the Perrys' dog. It concluded that the Perrys were the undisputed owners and possessors of the dog, and the lease agreement did not grant the Haydens any control over the dog. The actions taken by the Haydens after the incidents did not amount to possession or control, thus they could not be held liable for the dog attacks.

Our review of the summary judgment record, viewed in a light most favorable to Fields, reveals that there are no triable issues as to whether the Haydens were ever in possession or control of the Perrys' dog.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Haydens, concluding that they did not owe a duty of care to Fields due to their lack of control over the dog.

The entry is: Judgment affirmed.

Who won?

Bill and Patricia Hayden prevailed in the case because the court found they did not have possession or control over the dog, and thus owed no duty of care to Fields.

Because no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to the Haydens' lack of possession or control over their tenants' dog, the trial court properly concluded that the Haydens did not owe Fields a duty of care.

You must be