Legal Opinion

Benningfield ex rel. Benningfield v. Zinsmeister

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2012No. 2009-SC-000660-DGPublished

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

  1. Paintsville Hospital Co. v. RoseKentucky Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Rye v. WeaselKentucky Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Nelson v. HallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  4. Hughes v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Floyd County Board of Education v. RatliffKentucky Supreme Court · 1997

8 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