Landlord not liable for tenant's dog bite absent knowledge of the dog

Torts -- Premises liability -- Dog bite -- Landlord's liability -- where landlord had no actual or constructive knowledge that dog was being kept at leased premises landlord has no liability for dog bite by tenant’s dog.

Landlord’s office was in a different city from the leased premises. Tenant did not indicate that he owned a dog on the lease application.  Landlord visited the leased premises a week after move-in but did not go inside.  There was no evidence tenant had a dog at the time. A few weeks after that a dog belonging to the tenant bit the Plaintiff.  A few days before, a neighbor complained to animal control about the dog barking.   About a month later, landlord learned of the presence of a dog and issued tenant a 7 day notice of non-compliance and the dog was removed.

Florida law is clear: “A landlord may be liable for injuries resulting from an attack by a tenant's dog, if the landlord knew, or should have known that the tenant kept a vicious dog on the premises, and the landlord had the ability to control its presence.” Rosseau v. Fintz, 711 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1460a]. See also Noble v. Yorke, 490 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1986); Vasques By and Through Rocha v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Ward v. Young, 504 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987); and Anderson v. Walthal, 468 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

The court ruled that  there is no significantly probative, record evidence to dispute the fact that the owner and landlord had no actual or constructive knowledge that a dog was being kept by Mr. Moore at the subject house,  much less that the landlord would have known the dog was vicious.

Judgment was entered for the landlord.

WHITEMAN v. TAL INVESTMENTS LLC, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 76a.  Pasco County 2026