Quote:
Posted By NpS . . . I'm not following your line of thought Bob. IMO bad behavior by the dog is the responsibility of the dog owner. Period. If the dog owner takes the dog to a public park where the dog misbehaves, liability goes to the dog owner, not the govt entity that owns the park. To me, our common area should be treated the same way as a public park for purposes of determining liability for the behavior of the dog. It's the responsibility of the dog owner to have his dog under control no matter where he takes the dog.
âHow dangerous can a single goldfish be ?â ( quipped recurrently about pet prohibitions & levels of substantiality )
NPS : I could be wrong but consider these please .
1- I am presuming rear-yard Invisible Fenced areas intruding into common lands. There would be little or no physical definition except possibly the typical flags soon superfluous & likely ripped up by lawnmowing or deteriorated as mine were.
Each Rover would police each domain ( . . . hmmm . . . ) ( & - by pain-conditioning - would "know where" the virtual fence ends. Others may not know including possible visitors . . landscapers . . . inquisitive children. . . .
2 - Without a magic wand, how to predict what may here be eccentric/idiosyncratic outcomes ?
2A- GenoSFla March 25/16 found : two 1996 cases in Florida, i.e. Barrwood Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Maser, 675 So.2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Sanzare v. Varesi, 681 So.2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). ; "... homeowners associations were put on notice that they too can be found liable, at least in the civil context, for dog bites occurring on common areas. Each of these cases held that Florida homeowners associations may be liable when a bad dog harms someone within the community if the association was previously aware of the dogâs vicious propensities."
2B Aug 5 2014 Law Blog : Chicago ILL court in preliminary procedure holds condo corp NOT automatically liable for common area dog attack without prior actual or constructive knowledge of substantial danger Tyrka v. Glenview Ridge Condominium Association, 2014 Il App. 1st 132762 (1st Dist. 2014), http://www.chicagocondolawyer.com/2014/08/the-bark-before-the-bite-new-case-finds-boards-not-liable-for-dangerous-dogs-without-notice/ )
3 - If your jurisdiction is like mine, there have been pet prohibition judgments & nuisance compliancing judgments including expelling outdoor cats & awarding $20 K costs !
Not as common have been lawsuits over injuries caused by dogs uncontrolled within the common element.
For injury within a condo common element, in 2014 an 89 year old woman here - injured by an owner's merely exuberant big dogs at large within the common element - sued both :
1 - the DOG OWNER under strict liability law as widespread but not universal in the U.S.; and
2 - the CONDO CORPORATION as statutorily deemed Occupier of the common elements ( able then to proceed to a negligence analysis ). All with lawyers.
Not some physical authorized dog run but a mere unfortunate interaction between users without special exclusionary or semi-private privileges like Invisible Fence OKd by the condo corporation.
The condo corporation argued in vain that it should be released as a co-defendant. Argued that liability here is a dog harbourer's, NOT MERE Occupier Liability arising by enacted condo law from the venue of the injury & whether steps taken to enforce etc.
Argued from SOME landlords & SOME innkeepers slope-shouldering all liability onto the dog harbourer.
The court however denied that defence and ordered the condo corporation to continue as a defendant under Occupiers Liabiity. A condo lawyer commented insightfully as to possibly why :
" while all owners âownâ the common elements, it is the corporation who is in the best position to control the conditions of the premises and to control the activities and the individuals allowed on common property."
The parties apparently settled privately.
Anyway, it's just a single case. There may be no magic answer nor anyone ever to be injured in your community either.