Legal Opinion

Uccello v. Laudenslayer

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 14, 1975No. Civ. 1936PublishedCited by 114 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FRANSON, J.

This appeal presents a question of first impression: Under what circumstances does a landlord owe a duty of care to his tenant’s invitees to prevent injury from an attack by a vicious dog kept by the tenant on the leased premises? We hold that a duty of care arises when the landlord has actual knowledge of the presence of the dangerous animal and when he has the right to remove the animal by retaking possession of the premises.

A jury trial commenced on appellant’s complaint for personal injuries against defendant Cappell and respondent Laudenslayer. At the conclusion of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Raymond v. Paradise Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Bias v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Johnston v. De La Guerra Properties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Brennan v. Cockrell Investments, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1973

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

3Cited by114 opinions

  1. Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Brantley v. PisaroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  3. Stoiber v. HoneychuckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  4. Becker v. IRM Corp.California Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1998

109 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