Benningfield ex rel. Benningfield v. Zinsmeister
Kentucky Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchroder, J.
The plurality changes the law to hold that a landlord can now be the statutory “owner” of a tenant’s dog for purposes of Kentucky’s dog bite statute, and, therefore, strictly liable for injuries to a victim inflicted by the tenant’s dog’s bites. I *570dissent, and would follow our long-established interpretations of Kentucky’s dog bite statutes which have never considered the landlord an “owner” of a tenant’s dog. Further, while our case law recognizes that a landlord can have liability for dog bites under general negligence principles, summary judgment in favor of the landlords was nevertheless…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Paintsville Hospital Co. v. RoseKentucky Supreme Court · 1985
- Rye v. WeaselKentucky Supreme Court · 1996
- Nelson v. HallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Hughes v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2002
- Floyd County Board of Education v. RatliffKentucky Supreme Court · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.