Preview:

No. 74, September Term, 1997 Shanita M. Matthews et al. v. Ambetwood Associates Limited Partnership, Inc. et al.

[Whether A Landlord Of An Apartment Complex Owes A Duty To Social Guests Of A Tenant Who, While In The Tenant's Apartment, Are Injured Or Killed By A Highly Dangerous Pit Bull Dog Kept By The Tenant, When The Landlord Knew Of The Dog's Presence And Was Aware Of The Dog's Dangerousness, When The Presence Of The Dog Was In Violation Of The Lease, And Where The Landlord Could Have Taken Steps To Abate The Danger]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 74 September Term, 1997 ____________________________________________

SHANITA L. MATTHEWS et al.

v.

AMBERWOOD ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, INC. et al. ____________________________________________

Bell, C.J., Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Raker Wilner Cathell, JJ. ____________________________________________ Opinion by Eldridge, J., Rodowsky, Chasanow and Cathell, JJ., dissent. ____________________________________________ Filed:

We issued a writ of certiorari in this tort case primarily to decide the issue of whether a landlord of an apartment complex owes a duty to social guests of a tenant who, while in the tenant's apartment, are injured or killed by a highly dangerous pit bull dog kept by the tenant, when the landlord knew of the dog's presence and was aware of the dog's dangerousness, when the presence of the dog was in violation of the lease, and where the landlord could have taken steps to abate the danger. I. Shelly Morton leased apartment A-1 in an apartment building located at 6012 Amberwood Road, Baltimore, Maryland, from October 9, 1993, through October 31, 1994. The apartment building was managed by the defendant Monocle Management, Ltd. and owned by the defendant Amberwood Associates Limited Partnership, Inc. The lease Morton signed contained the following provisions:

"The Landlord agrees to lease to the Applicant(s) the above specified apartment so long as Applicant(s) qualify for tenancy under the criteria established by the owners of the apartment project. ***** "HOUSE RULES "The resident agrees to comply with the following rules and regulations which shall be deemed to be part of the lease. Breach of these rules and regulations shall be deemed to be a default of the lease. ***** "18. Not to have any pets on the premises."

- 2 -

It is undisputed that Morton kept her boyfriend's dog, a pit bull named Rampage, in her apartment. Sometimes she kept the dog chained outside, on the grounds of the apartment complex. The dog was not normally aggressive toward persons when Morton was present, but, when she was absent, Rampage would attempt to attack people in his vicinity. In the trial court below, several employees of the defendants testified about dangerous encounters involving the dog, that the dog was "vicious," and that the incidents involving the dog were reported to the defendants' resident manager or the manager on duty. William Wenger, a maintenance supervisor employed by the defendants, testified that on two occasions he was unable to complete service calls in Morton's apartment because of the dog, that "it was a vicious dog," that on both occasions he immediately reported the incidents to the manager of the apartment complex, and that on both occasions he wrote the reason for his failure to complete the service calls on the service ticket. Wenger also testified that porters were unable to pick up trash behind the apartment building when Rampage was chained behind the building because "[t]he dog came after them." One of the porters, Ray Hall, corroborated Wenger's testimony and stated that he reported the matter to the resident manager of the apartment complex. David Jones, a maintenance technician employed by the defendants, testified that in the fall or early winter of 1993-1994, when he was attempting to perform maintenance duties in Morton's apartment, he was unable to do so because the dog "jumped at me . . . and, you know, lunged at me." Jones stated that he reported the incident to the manager on duty at

- 3 -

the time. Another maintenance technician employed by the defendants, Phillip Monroe, testified about several incidents when he observed Rampage exhibiting aggressive behavior, both in Morton's apartment and when the dog was chained outside. Monroe stated that he promptly reported each incident to the manager. Included were incidents when Rampage "jumped at me . . . like he wanted to get to me" and when Monroe had to "jump a fence to get away from the dog." Monroe also testified about seeing an incident when Rampage was chained outside and a boy

"was coming down the walkway and . . . the thing snapped and the boy ran and he jumped the other fence at the end of the west side of the back and tried to get up to the second floor of the balcony. The dog was on him."

Monroe stated that he immediately ran to the office and told the manager that the "pit bull was after a guy in the back." Monroe further testified that the dog would regularly growl at children in the area. According to Monroe, the various incidents he testified about occurred over a two month period.1 On February 9, 1994, Shanita Matthews and her 16-month-old son Tevin Williams visited Morton and Morton's 5-year-old son Darnell at Morton's apartment. The children were playing together in the living room, and the adults were seated at the dining room table

Although the defendants' manager and assistant manager contradicted the abovesummarized testimony about reports of the incidents being given to them, the jury obviously did not credit their testimony in this regard.

1

- 4 -

putting together a puzzle when Morton was called away from the apartment. Shortly after Morton left the apartment, Rampage attacked Tevin. Rampage grabbed Tevin by the neck and was shaking him back and forth. Matthews was unable to free Tevin from Rampage's jaws. Matthews then called 911 and yelled for Morton to assist her. Morton reentered the apartment and was also unable to free Tevin. She grabbed a knife, and, while Matthews held Tevin in her arms, Morton repeatedly stabbed Rampage causing the animal temporarily to release Tevin. Rampage continued to bite Tevin, however, until Morton finally was able to put the dog out of the apartment through the back door. By this time the ambulance had arrived, and Morton took Tevin from Matthews and ran with him to the ambulance. Matthews then tried to exit the house through the front door, but Rampage had run to the front door of the apartment. According to Matthews, "I had to hold the door tight so he wouldn't get in and get me or . . . Darnell." Morton then returned to the apartment, and Matthews was able to leave the apartment and join Tevin in the ambulance. Approximately one hour after arriving at the hospital, Tevin died from his injuries. In September 1994, the present action was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against Amberwood and Monocle. Count I of the complaint was a wrongful death action pursuant to Maryland Code (1974, 1995 Repl. Vol., 1997 Supp.),

Download Mathews v. Amberwood Associates.pdf

Maryland Law