美漂眾生相－－房客的狗咬人

來源: 希望和興旺 於 2016-01-27 22:56:37

http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/law/191957.html

去年11月突然收到一封律師信，信中說：我代表XX提出在XX時間在X公寓發生的狗咬事件。請填上附上的表格。如果你在事故發生時有保險，請保險公司馬上聯係我們，如果你沒有保險，請在附表中列明。請了解如果你配合我們，你可以避免一場訴訟。但是如果10天內我們沒有收到你的回複,我們就會牽連你進一個訴訟程序. 信中沒有提供被咬的情況，沒有賬單，沒有其他任何證明。

我們馬上聯係了公寓的租客。租客確認有其事，但是其實還不是租客的狗，是他的朋友的狗暫寄在他那裏。被咬者是女郵差，被咬的地方是community裏麵的Public area。 租客說被咬後沒有報警，沒有叫動物管理協會（是這麽個機構吧）的人來，後來叫了郵差的上司來，要求賠償，租客回複他沒有保險。（後來郵局把租客的郵遞停了，因為不安全）。我們知道租客有狗（小犬），但是他的朋友寄放狗的事我們完全不知情，於是叫他趕快把狗送走，他說狗已經送走了。租客說他的父親可以作證，是郵差踢了狗，狗才咬人（當然這個不重要，重要的是狗咬了人。）我們也督促租客趕緊買保險，但是買了沒有，不知道。然後提醒租客自己的狗要拴好。我們也作了一些功課，我們作為房東，可能會也可能不會受到牽連。但是這種要告就告有產者的做法真讓人惡心。

我們覺得自己已經做了需要做的事情，沒有理睬那封信了。

前兩天，來了一封掛號信，還是原來的那封信的內容，區別是右上角多了一句：2nd request. 

現在我們想谘詢下：1、我們需不需要回複這樣的信件。不回複，是否將來不利於我們。如果回複，肯定是找律師回複。2、我們還需要做些什麽嗎？比如需要驅趕房客嗎？他的Lease 到期了，現在是month by month.

 

 

回應

　

 

來源: 單身老貓 於 2016-01-28 02:51:47

 

建議您讀一下這幾個資料 (也許你已經讀過,希望老貓不是浪費您的時間)

https://www.lawguru.com/articles/law/california-dog-bite-law

http://www.blanelaw.com/library/california-landlord-legal-responsibility-for-a-tenant-owned-dog-that-bites.cfm

與下列的資料,個人的建議是如果你平常有熟識的律師,你最好問一下,這個信你必須回答,因為你的租客沒有保險,你的 landlord liability insurance 必須承擔賠償的責任,所以現在對方要求你的保險資料,您不能不理會對方的要求

同時為了普法,老貓 post 下列資料如下.....

http://dogbitelaw.com/california/liability-based-on-other-grounds-in-california

 

Landlord liability for dog bites inflicted by tenant's dog

Under some circumstances, a California landlord can be held liable when a dog belonging to a tenant bites a person. For example, the landlord might have been taking care of the dog, or might have failed to repair a gate or fence. In such cases, the liability of the landlord would be based upon negligence.

A commercial landlord can be held liable for a dog attack if he has actual or constructive knowledge of the dog's viciousness prior to the attack, and could have removed the dog before it injured the victim. In Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128, the court stated: "We hold that a landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the inspection of his commercial property and to remove a dangerous condition, which includes a dog, from the premises, if he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care would have known, the dog was dangerous and usually present on the premises."

In the Portillo case, the plaintiff was bitten in a liquor store by a dog owned by the tenant who was operating the business. The court noted that it is reasonably foreseeable that guard dogs in commercial establishments open to the public will injure someone. The court held that the landlord could not avoid liability by failing to inspect the premises and thereby claim that he had no knowledge of the dog.

A landlord can be held liable when a dog belonging to a tenant bites a person, if the landlord or his representatives possessed actual knowledge of the dogís viciousness prior to the attack, and could have removed the dog before it injured the victim. Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504. The essential difference between the duty of a residential landlord and that of a commercial landlord cases is that a commercial landlord has a duty to inspect the premises throughout the term of the tenancy, while a residential landlord does not because the tenant has a right of quiet enjoyment. In Uccello (supra), the court said the following about residential landlords:

"[A] duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities. Because the harboring of pets is such an important part of our way of life and because the exclusive possession of rented premises normally is vested in the tenant, we believe that actual knowledge and not mere constructive knowledge is required. For this reason we hold that a landlord is under no duty to inspect the premises for the purpose of discovering the existence of a tenant's dangerous animal; only when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal, coupled with the right to have it removed from the premises, does a duty of care arise." Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504.

At the commencement of a rental term, and when it expires, a landlord of residential or commercial property has the legal duty to inspect the premises and remedy dangerous conditions. (California Civil Jury Instructions, 1006 (Landlord’s Duty); Stone v. Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 608.) An inadequate fence or gate in need of repair or replacement is a dangerous condition if the landlord knows that it is to be used for the purpose of confining a dog or another animal that, if not confined, can cause damage. (Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 446.)

Liability can be established even where the accident happens off the landlord's property. For example, in Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1832, a tenant's dogs attacked plaintiff four blocks away from where the dogs lived. The plaintiff sued the dog's owner and the owner's residential landlord. The court held that the landlord could be liable, explaining the law as follows:

"If the dog is taken on a leash by its owner, off the premises, prevention of an attack by the dog may be beyond the landlord's control. But if the dog escapes the landlord's property because of defects in that property, the landlord is liable for the off-site injuries."

Landlord liability for failure to warn about a vicious dog in the neighborhood

In Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal. App. 3d 412 it was held that a landlord in California has no duty to warn his tenants about the presence of a vicious dog in the neighborhood.