Carter v. Metro North Associates case brief
255 A.D.2d 251
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant
landlords challenged the decision of the lower court, which denied
the landlords' motion for summary judgment in appellee tenant's
strict liability claim against the landlord.
FACTS: The tenant of a building owned and managed by the landlords was attacked and bitten on the face by a pit bull owned by another resident. There was no evidence indicating that the dog had ever attacked any other individual, or had previously displayed any vicious behavior. The tenant brought an action against the landlord for strict liability. The lower court took judicial notice of the vicious nature of pit bulls as a breed and denied the landlords' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court reversed. The court concluded that the lower court erred in circumventing the requirement for evidence concerning the particular animal by purporting to take judicial notice of the vicious nature of the breed as a whole. The court noted that there were alternative opinions concerning the propensities of pit bulls that precluded judicial notice such as was taken by the court. The court found no causal connection between the landlords' failure to enforce the "No Pets" provision of the lease and the tenant's injuries.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the lower court's decision denying the landlords' motion for summary judgment dismissing the tenant's complaint.
FACTS: The tenant of a building owned and managed by the landlords was attacked and bitten on the face by a pit bull owned by another resident. There was no evidence indicating that the dog had ever attacked any other individual, or had previously displayed any vicious behavior. The tenant brought an action against the landlord for strict liability. The lower court took judicial notice of the vicious nature of pit bulls as a breed and denied the landlords' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court reversed. The court concluded that the lower court erred in circumventing the requirement for evidence concerning the particular animal by purporting to take judicial notice of the vicious nature of the breed as a whole. The court noted that there were alternative opinions concerning the propensities of pit bulls that precluded judicial notice such as was taken by the court. The court found no causal connection between the landlords' failure to enforce the "No Pets" provision of the lease and the tenant's injuries.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the lower court's decision denying the landlords' motion for summary judgment dismissing the tenant's complaint.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment