What is the test for determining whether a landlord owes a duty of reasonable care to an injured third person?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Martinez v. Bank of America, 82 Cal.App.4th 883, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 576 (Cal. App. 2000):
Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1832 held that determining whether the landlord of non-commercial real property owes a duty of reasonable care toward an injured third person involves a two-step analysis. First, we ask whether the landlord had actual knowledge that the dog was vicious. This element can be shown either by circumstantial evidence that the landlord must have known the dog was dangerous or by direct evidence that the landlord actually knew the dog was dangerous.2 (Id. at p. 1838.) Second, we ask whether the landlord had the ability to prevent the foreseeable harm. That ability derives from the landlord's control over his property and his ability to prevent dangerous conditions on that property. (Id. at pp. 1838-1839.)
2. The Bank Had No Knowledge of Dangerous Dogs
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
