## Facts

- Dinesh Batra owned and leased a house to Martha Torres; Batra did not live on the property and had transferred possession to Torres.
- The lease prohibited pets without Batra’s written consent and stated Batra could remove unauthorized animals and surrender them to local authorities.
- Torres sometimes kept her adult son’s pit bull at the house; the son did not live there.
- On a prior roof-repair visit, Batra saw the dog chained in the yard and barking.
- Nine-year-old Clarissa Ewell went to the house to play with Torres’s daughter.
- The dog was inside a fenced yard but was not chained; it broke through the fence and attacked Ewell, causing injuries requiring medical treatment and stitches.
- Ewell’s mother, Tammy Clark, sued Torres and Batra for negligence.
- After a bench trial, the court found Batra and Torres each 50% responsible and awarded damages; it denied Batra’s motions asserting no duty.

## Issues

1. Whether an out-of-possession landlord who retains no control over leased premises owes a duty to a third party injured by a tenant’s dog on the property.
2. Whether a lease’s no-pets clause and contractual authorization to remove unauthorized animals establishes sufficient control to create such a duty.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment against Batra and rendered a take-nothing judgment as to him.
- The court held Batra owed no legal duty because he was an out-of-possession landlord who did not retain control over the premises or the dog.
- The lease’s no-pets/removal provision was treated as an enforcement right, not day-to-day control creating tort duties.
- Batra’s prior awareness of the dog’s presence did not create a duty absent control or an applicable exception.

## Legal Principles

- In negligence, the existence of a duty is a question of law for the court.
- A landlord who transfers possession and control to a tenant generally owes no duty to protect third parties from dangerous conditions or activities on the leased premises, absent a recognized exception.
- For injuries caused by a tenant’s animal, an out-of-possession landlord is not liable when the landlord lacks possession/control and has not assumed responsibility for the animal.
- Contractual rights to enforce lease terms (including entry for limited purposes or the right to remove unauthorized animals) do not, without more, establish the control required to impose a duty.
- Knowledge of a risk, without control over the premises or instrumentality causing injury, is insufficient to create a duty.

## Conclusion

The court held that an out-of-possession landlord was not liable for a child’s injuries caused by a tenant’s dog where the landlord lacked actual control over the premises or the animal; a no-pets clause and a contractual right to remove unauthorized animals did not impose a tort duty.


Batra v. Clark, 110 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003)