Case Analysis: Personal Injury Case Involving Vicious Dog Bite Injury

Case: Morehead v. Deitrich, 932 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010).

Facts of Case:   Deitrich owned a single family residence in Logansport, and rented the residence to Sanders, who owned a pit bull.  Even though the lease agreement provided that there were to be no pets owned by the tenants, Deitrich made an exception even though he admitted he knew of the dangerous and vicious propensities of the pit bull.  Morehead was delivering mail and after placing mail in the residence’s mailbox, she heard the dog and was ultimately bitten by the pit bull, sustaining injuries.  She filed her Complaint against Deitrich for personal injuries, and Deitrich filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that since he did not retain any control over the property, he owed no duty to Morehead.  The trial court granted summary judgment for the landlord, and Morehead filed a Motion to Correct Error, which was denied by the trial court.

Issue:   Did Deitrich (the landlord) maintain sufficient control over the leased premises for liability to attach for the injuries to the postal worker?

Holding:   The Court of Appeals noted that in order to prevail against a landowner for the acts of a tenant’s dog, the Plaintiff must demonstrate both that the landowner retained control over the property and that he or she had actual knowledge that the dog had dangerous propensities.  There was no dispute between the parties that Deitrich had knowledge of the propensities of the pit bull, and the parties also agreed that Deitrich did not have control of the premises when the dog bite occurred.  Morehead argued that since the landlord had knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities at the time the lease agreement was executed, the landlord had a duty to prevent a dangerous condition under a premises liability theory.

The Court did note that actual physical possession of property at the precise moment an accident happens is not always dispositive on the question of control for premises liability purposes if there is evidence that another party was in a better position to prevent the harm that occurred.  However, The Court held that this exception applies when there is a dangerous condition or “property defect” which created a substantial risk of injury.  They declined to hold that the pit pull was a “property defect” and also found that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the dog would escape its confinement and bite someone who comes upon the property.  The Court stated that the harm in this case was caused not by any failure of the landlord, but rather by the tenant’s failure to adequately confine the dog.  Thus, they found that the trial court properly granted Deitrich’s motion for summary judgment in this case.

Lesson To Be Learned:   Landlords: don't rent to tenants with vicious pets. Pet owners: make sure you have insurance in case your pet bites someone.

 
Location: Fort Wayne, IN, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Recent changes to the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board's policy regarding nurse case managers

Image
In some worker's compensation claims it is not uncommon for the worker's compensation insurance company to retain a nurse case manager to oversee the injured worker's medical treatment. Essentially, a nurse case manager acts as the worker's compensation insurance company's claim adjuster's eyes and ears on the ground. On April 17, 2018, the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board issued an update regarding its nurse case manager guidelines . According to the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board, "ideally, a nurse case manager is a liaison among the medical provider, the employer and the injured worker.  While not an indispensable player in the Indiana worker’s compensation process or specifically governed by the Worker’s Compensation Act, the nurse case manager can play an integral role in the coordination of medical treatment and the stay-at-work/return-to-work process." In its updated guidelines, the Indiana Worker's Compensation Lawyer
Read more
Image
In the 2011-2012 Session of the Indiana General Assembly, Public Law 69-2012 was passed allowing D felons to reduce their past mistakes and have them entered as Class A Misdemeanors.  ( See  new I.C. s 35-50-2-7). In order to reduce a Class D Felony conviction and have it entered as a Class A Misdemeanor: 1.  The offense cannot be of a sexual or violent nature (as defined in I.C. 11-8-8-5); 2.  The offense did not result in bodily injury to another person; 3.  The offense did not involve perjury or official misconduct. 4.  At least three (3) years must have passed since the sentence was completed (if any); 5.  At least three (3) years must have passed since any other obligations were satisfied; and 6.  The defendant has no pending criminal charges. If you meet these criteria and would like to have your Class D Felony conviction reduced to a Class A Misdemeanor in Indiana    Attorney Fort Wayne Indiana .  
Read more

The Four Stages of the Social Security Disability Process

Image
When filing for Social Security Disability benefits, it is important to know what you are dealing with and how the disability process works. Specifically, there are four stages in the disability process. The first stage involves filing an application for Social Security Disability benefits, completing the initial interview at the Field Office, undergoing the medical evaluation, and receiving a decision from Social Security regarding your application. If Social Security denies the application, then you will receive a letter indicating as such and informing you of your rights to appeal the denial decision. When you appeal the denial, the Field Office will review the medical evidence and evidence in the record and either confirm or reverse its decision. If Social Security confirms the decision, it will send a letter to that affect and inform you of your rights to appeal to the Hearing Office for a hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge. The first two stages are conducted by
Read more