Sign up for our newsletters    

Sign up for our newsletters   

Baltimore City Paper home page.

For Pit Bulls, No More Freebies

April 27, 2012
By

In a little-noticed ruling, (link to pdf) the Maryland Court of Appeals has changed a long-standing “one free bite” rule regarding dog bite victims’ rights to receive compensation for their injuries:

We are modifying the Maryland common law of liability as it relates to attacks by pit bull and cross-bred pit bull dogs against humans. With the standard we establish today (which is to be applied in this case on remand), when an owner or a landlord is proven to have knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull (as both the owner and landlord did in this case) or should have had such knowledge, a prima facie case is established. It is not necessary that the landlord (or the pit bull’s owner) have actual knowledge that the specific pit bull involved is dangerous. Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

The decision, published April 26 in the case captioned Dorothy M. Tracey v. Anthony K. Solesky, sends the case back to the Circuit Court for retrial under the new standard. In the past, a bite victim would have to show that the person who had control of the dog knew the dog was vicious and failed to take adequate measures to prevent the bite. Proving that  usually required the victim to find evidence that the dog had bitten someone before—and that the defendant knew that.

The law now says: “When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous.” It applies not only to the dogs’ owners, but to any person who “had the right to control the pit bull’s presence”—i.e., the land lord.

This could have profound implications not just for slumlords, but also for animal shelters, rescue volunteers (and their landlords), animal hospitals and veterinarians.

(Hat Tip: Hayley Nethen)

UPDATE:  The Humane Society Weighs in

The Humane Society of the United States Responds to Maryland Court of Appeals’ Decision Regarding Pit Bull Dogs

(April 28, 2012) The Humane Society of the United States will work with Maryland dog advocates and members of the legislature to develop rational, science-based dangerous dog policies for the state after the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a decision fundamentally changing longstanding liability rules relating to pit bull and mixed pit bull dogs.

Betsy McFarland, vice president of The Humane Society of the United States’ companion animals department, issues the following statement:

“In addition to our general concerns about the issues with breed-specific public policies, we believe that the court overstepped its authority. The decision acknowledged it was ‘modifying the Maryland common law of liability.’ A seismic shift in Maryland law of this nature should be undertaken by the legislature, not judges. The legislature should conduct appropriate fact-finding and hearings, consider the available science, and make a measured, non-emotional decision on this important policy issue.

We encourage advocates to call their state legislators to respectfully voice their concerns, and urge them to work with advocates on legislation in the next session that provides rational, science-based dangerous dog policies for the state.

The Humane Society of the United States’ companion animals department is in communication with shelters and rescues, and will be looking for ways to support them as they consider the ramifications of this decision.”

For more information about pit bulls, go here.

Facts:

  • Renters who currently own a pit bull or pit bull mix should contact attorneys licensed in Maryland with any questions or concerns regarding their specific situations.
  • In general, a landlord cannot change a lease to ban pit bulls before the lease term expires. A lease is a contract, and under Maryland law the landlord may not change the terms of the lease without your consent for the remainder of the lease term. If your lease has an automatic renewal clause, the landlord must notify you of a rent increase or any other change with enough notice for you to decide whether you want to renew or not. If your lease does not automatically renew, you should be sure to thoroughly read the new lease you will sign for any prohibition against dogs that may constitute a pit bull.
  • Options for renters with pit bulls will likely begin to be more difficult to find. For tips for finding pet friendly rental properties, go here: http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/resources/tips/animal_friendly_apartments.html.
  • In general, if a tenant breaches the terms of a lease agreement, a landlord may evict him or her. However, the landlord must go to court and obtain an eviction judgment first.  Also, state law requires the landlord to first give the tenant one month’s advance notice that he is ending the lease and the reason why. However, if the breach of lease involves tenant behavior that constitutes a danger to other people or property, the landlord must only give 14 days advance notice. Therefore, if a tenant with a pit bull or pit bull mix has a lease that is about to expire, he or she should review the new lease for any changes, as there may be a short time frame in which to make moving arrangements.
  • If a tenant does not have a written lease or does not know whether it’s in effect, he or she should be aware that a landlord is required to use a written lease if the tenancy is going to be for a year or longer, or if the landlord owns five or more rental units in the State.  If a lease is to last more than a year, it must be written to be enforceable. If you have an oral agreement you landlord must still give proper written notice before any changes to the terms of an oral lease.

Update (II):

Reader Amanda Fitzgerald shares this alternate view of pit bull life.

Tags: , ,

  • Pingback: For Pit Bulls, No More Freebies | Citypaper Blogs | Pro Openbin

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=811847523 Jen Mills Denning

     If only it was a requirement to educate yourself before you could make
    such statements.  A real shame for ALL MD dog owners.  Lots of great
    dogs are going to lose their lives due to new shelter policies.Â
    Families who rent will face the horrible decision of having to move or
    surrender their family pets.  Pit bulls have NEVER been bred for human
    aggression!!  Terriers (of all types) may not be suitable for multi
    dog/pet environments – based on their INDIVIDUAL temperament and
    personality.   Most dogs (of any breed) involved in bites or attacks are
    un-altered, resident dogs, not companion animals.  And ALL owners
    should be held responsible for the dog’s actions.  This does nothing to
    protect MD residents, it just punishes a lot of good people and their
    family pets.  Breed specific laws are failing ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.  Why
    would MD think it would work differently here?  Why don’t we address
    the real issues, rather than punishing so many for the actions of so
    few??
    Actually – pretty crappy of the city paper to post the obnoxious pit bull in a muzzle photo – way to add to the media created hysteria – I expected more from CP.

  • Melissa Engerman

    Well said Jen – I am very disappointed with CP for following along with the media hysteria where there is no facts. 

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Melissa. Baltimore is so disappointing me with this right now. Just so sad.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ronda-Dalton/574535107 Ronda Dalton

    Shame Shame Shame on the person who wrote this article only to add to the hysteria. There is no one breed of animal that should be deemed dangerous. How unfortunate for Maryland to become even more blind to the welfare of animals. Its no wonder our rescue in Virginia has to save so many lives that is obvious to us that Maryland policy makers are ignorant too them. My heart aches for all the lives that will be lost because the people creating policy are ignorant and uneducated. It is the people (very few people) that have led now to even more killings and murders of innocent companion animals. Shame shame shame Maryland… I am so glad that my policy makers are listening to the people that voted and put them in office. Shame Shame Shame on the writer of this article… please educate yourself before to type and make yourself just as ignorant and blind. How about you go to a Pit Bull rescue and ask for thier side of the story? How about being unbiased and stating ALL the facts. This isn’t news it is sensationalism and unfortunately it will lead to more killings :(

  • http://www.facebook.com/jmpwright Jasmine Wright

    I have to agree with the above comments!!! It is PAINFULLY obvious that Edward Ericson Jr has never been around pitbulls or pit mixes, and if he has then obviously not many!  It is also just as obvious that he did litlle to NO research before writing this piece! As a LIFELONG dog owner and from my own experience with purebred and mixed pits the are a smart, loyal, and GENTLE breed. People should know what they are talking about beore the are allowed to make public accusations. As for the picture, i personally think its disgusting, distasteful  and as i can see borderline abusive!

  • http://www.peacefuldog.blogspot.com Kirsten Stade

    I’d like to see the OWNER of the pit bull in the above picture exposed and held responsible for abuse of what is more than likely an innocent animal. For no fault of its own this dog’s ears were cut off and its neck was hung with heavy painful metal prongs. Even if this dog has a bite history, there are far more humane ways to prevent it from biting again. If it doesn’t, the prong collar is a great way to make it more irritable and likely to bite. As the posters above have noted, pit bull-type dogs are actually among the least likely to bite humans. Mr. Ericson would have done well to include some of this perspective.

  • Anonymous

    Easy now, commenters. I’ve been around pit bulls and don’t harbor any
    prejudice against them. The post and the photo beside it are meant to
    report what the judges said, not what I say. Go ahead and read the
    decision and the dissent.