Dog bite; Premises liability; Duty owed to a “licensee”; Whether a defendant knew or had reason to know of any dangerous propensities of the dog; Tripp v Baker

Concluding that the record showed no genuine issue of material fact that defendant-property owner (BBSB) did not know or have “reason to know of any dangerous propensities of the dog” that allegedly bit plaintiffs, the court held that the trial court erred in denying BBSB’s summary disposition motion in this premises liability case. BBSB’s owners are defendant-MacIntyre’s parents. It owns the condo where she hosted a party plaintiffs attended, at which they alleged that her dog bit them. BBSB argued “there was no genuine factual dispute that it could not be held liable for plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.” The court agreed. The trial court found that “fact questions precluded summary disposition on” the issue of “whether BBSB had possession and control of the condo at the time of the alleged dog bites.” The court held that it “erred by ending its analysis there, seemingly assuming that the presence of such questions necessarily meant that BBSB’s motion must be denied.” But BBSB raised other arguments in moving for summary disposition, including that it “had no knowledge of any alleged dangerous propensities of the dog[.]” The court held that this issue was “sufficient in itself to demonstrate BBSB’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this case, even if it is assumed that plaintiffs were” BBSB’s licensees. Nothing in MacIntyre’s testimony suggested “that BBSB knew or had reason to know of any dangerous propensities that [her] dog may have had.” Plaintiffs pointed “to their own deposition testimony as well as that of another party guest. According to this testimony, the dog bit one other guest in addition to plaintiffs at the same party, was aggressive toward or attacked two other guests at the party, and also bit another individual on a separate occasion. Some of this testimony is hearsay, however, and plaintiffs have made no attempt to demonstrate how it would be admissible.” The court added that “none of this testimony indicates that any dog bites occurred prior to the party at which plaintiffs claim to have been bitten—let alone that BBSB knew or had reason to know of any such behavior or propensities at any point before those alleged bites.” Veterinary records showed that about two months before the party, the dog was prescribed medication after “an ‘exam for anxiety meds’” but nothing in the record indicated “BBSB knew or had reason to know about” this. Reversed and remanded.