Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Landlords can't be responsible for tenants' dogs

Commentator Kevin A. Dunne misses the point regarding liability for pit bulls ("Proposed bill would offer no meaningful recourse for many victims of dog attacks," Aug. 9). It is wrong and misguided to make landlords and their insurers financial "backstops" for tragedies resulting from a tenant or any other household member's failure to control a dog.

The responsibility for control of any dog lies with its owner. A landlord cannot step in to control a tenant's dog any more than he can control the behavior of a tenant's child or guest.

However, when a landlord knows that a tenant's dog is misbehaving on his property, he can demand the tenant control or remove the animal.

Clarifying in a lease that the tenant is responsible for the persons and possessions in his rented home did not, until the Solesky case, make the landlord responsible for their misbehavior. Nor did a landlord's knowledge of a dog's breed, until the Solesky case, provide him with knowledge of its bad behavior.

As Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, "hard cases make bad law … because [that] which appeals to the feelings distorts … judgment."

The Maryland legislature must act now to reverse this unprecedented decision, which adversely affects Maryland's human residents.

Katherine Kelly Howard

The writer is general counsel for Regional Management Inc. and legislative committee chair of the Maryland MultiHousing Association.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Another diatribe against pit bulls

    Another diatribe against pit bulls

    As a woman of a certain age and a pit bull adopter, I was dismayed to read another attack on pit bulls by columnist Dan Rodricks that this time seemed to question whether senior citizens are appropriate companions for such dogs ("In Frederick, a tragic reminder of pit bull ruling," Jan. 20).

  • Violence against pets must be taken seriously

    Violence against pets must be taken seriously

    In response to the editorial "Man's best friend" (Oct. 13), I am disappointed that The Baltimore Sun turned people's reactions to reported abuse into a competition as to which victims of violent crimes are more worthy of sympathy or outrage. Violence is violence, and none of it is good for our...

  • Tougher minimum sentences needed for animal cruelty [Letter]

    Tougher minimum sentences needed for animal cruelty [Letter]

    Animal cruelty is a violent crime that is often an indicator crime and a predictor crime as well. Animals, however, are property under the law, and while we have seen an increase in the number of prosecutions, most judges continue to treat these crimes as minor property crimes ("Man's best friend,"...

  • People who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans, too [Letter]

    People who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans, too [Letter]

    Is it too much to ask for The Sun's editorial board to consider both animal abuse and violence against humans as deserving of stiff sentencing ("Man's best friend," Oct. 12)?

  • Pit bulls still dangerous [Letter]

    Pit bulls still dangerous [Letter]

    I want to thank journalist Dan Rodricks for his informative column about pit bulls ("Two years after Maryland court ruling, pit bulls on attack," April 26). It helps me understand more about the pit bull lover uproar and their jargon about it being "the owner, not the breed." However, nothing will...

  • Rodricks feeds into pit bull hysteria [Letter]

    Rodricks feeds into pit bull hysteria [Letter]

    I was disturbed on multiple levels after reading Dan Rodricks' recent article, "Two years after Maryland court ruling, pit bulls on attack" (April 26). Not only does Mr. Rodricks feed into anti-pit bull hysteria for the sake of sensationalizing a hot-button issue, but his piece can hardly be called...

Comments
Loading

77°