Legal Opinion

Portillo v. Aiassa

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 25, 1994No. H011231PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MIHARA, J.

Respondent Anthony Portillo was attacked and seriously injured by a dog. He brought an action against the dog’s owner, John Kim, 1 and the owner’s landlord, appellant Henry Aiassa. After the jury rendered a verdict in favor of respondent, appellant filed the instant appeal. He contends the trial court erred in its jury instructions on a landlord’s duty of care. 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…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Thompson v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Christensen v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Lipson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Shields v. WagmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  2. Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property ManagementCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Donchin v. GuerreroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. Lopez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  5. Martinez v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API