In Tracey v. Solesky, No. 53, September Term 2012,the Maryland Court of Appeals has determined that showing that the owner of a dog or the landlord of a property knew that a dog is at least part pit bull is sufficient to hold the owner and landlord liable for any damage or injury caused by the dog. The ruling stated, “It is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous.”
This decision does not ban pit bulls in the State of Maryland, but it does make owners – and potentially landlords – liable for injuries caused by a pit bull. What this essentially means is that an apartment landlord can be held civilly liable for damage or injuries caused by a pit pull or pit bull mix regardless of whether the specific dog had a prior history of attacks or aggressive behavior.
This decision follows a trend of states and communities taking a hard line against dangerous dog breeds, most specifically pit bulls. Pit bulls are specifically banned in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and in a number of other localities around the country.
Based on this decision, owners (especially those in Maryland) should give serious consideration to banning pit bulls from properties that allow pets. Maryland landlords, as well as those in other jurisdictions that have taken positions relative to the tendencies of pit bulls to act aggressively, should seek advice from legal council before approving pit bulls or pit bull mixes as Companion Animals for a disabled individual. The liability inherent in permitting the presence of a pit bull may make such an accommodation request unreasonable.