Aviles v. Barnhill

Citations

• 217 Conn. App. 435

Syllabus

The plaintiffs sought to recover damages from the defendant landlord, H Co., for injuries they sustained as a result of H Co.'s alleged negligence with respect to an off premises attack by a dog. H Co. owned a multifam- ily home, which it leased to the defendant B. The defendants M, G, and B were the owners and/or keepers of the dog, which lived with B. The dog ran from H Co.'s premises to the plaintiffs' premises and attacked the plaintiffs, severely injuring them. The trial court granted H Co.'s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that, because it was undis- puted that the incident occurred off H Co.'s premises and because Connecticut's common law provides that a lessor owes no duty of care beyond its premises, H Co. owed no duty to the plaintiffs. On the plain- tiffs' appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court correctly concluded that H Co. did not owe the plaintiffs a duty of care under a theory of premises liability because the dog attack did not occur on property that it controlled; moreover, the plaintiffs' argument that our Supreme Court's decision in Giacalone v. Housing Authority (306 Conn. 399) broadened the scope of a landlord's duty under a theory of premises liability was unavailing because their argu- ment was based on a misreading of the record in that case and because the court in Giacalone did not expand a property owner's duty beyond the property's boundary line. 2. This court rejected the plaintiffs' request that this court adopt a provision (§ 379A) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which, if its elements were met, would extend liability to H Co. regardless of where the dog attack took place: our appellate precedent makes clear that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to someone who sustains injuries from a dog if the attack occurs beyond the landlord's property line in an area over which the landlord has no control; moreover, although neither our Supreme Court nor this court has expressly declined to adopt § 379A, both courts have