## Facts

- Marvin Miller rented an apartment in a complex owned by Toya Abbatiello and kept a dog there.
- The complex reportedly had a “no dogs” policy with an exception for small dogs; the written lease prohibited pets without landlord approval and addressed responsibility for pet-caused property damage.
- Patsy Ann Gilbert was bitten by Miller’s dog while at another tenant’s apartment in the same complex.
- Gilbert sued both Miller (dog owner) and Abbatiello (landlord), alleging Abbatiello was negligent in allowing Miller to keep a vicious dog on the premises despite the pet policy.
- Gilbert’s allegations did not claim Abbatiello owned, kept, or harbored the dog, and did not plead a specific duty arising from the lease terms.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord can be liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog to a person on the premises when the landlord is not the dog’s owner or keeper.
2. Whether lease provisions and a general “no dogs” policy create a tort duty requiring the landlord to prevent injuries from a tenant’s dog.
3. Whether the record, viewed in Gilbert’s favor, showed a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment for the landlord.

## Decision

- The trial court treated the landlord’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a summary judgment motion because materials outside the pleadings were considered.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Abbatiello.
- Even assuming Gilbert was a tenant visiting another tenant, the landlord was not shown to be the dog’s owner, keeper, or harborer, and was not shown to exercise the type of control over the dog necessary to impose a duty.
- The lease’s pet restrictions and the landlord’s general authority over the premises did not, by themselves, create a tort duty to protect others from the tenant’s dog.

## Legal Principles

- Liability for injuries caused by a dog generally rests on the dog’s owner or the person who has the dog in his or her care or keeping; premises ownership alone is insufficient.
- A landlord is generally not liable for injuries inflicted by a tenant’s dog absent evidence the landlord owned, kept/harbored, or exercised sufficient control over the animal to create a duty.
- Lease provisions restricting pets and reserving landlord approval are contractual terms governing the landlord-tenant relationship and do not, standing alone, impose a tort duty to third parties injured by a tenant’s dog.
- Summary judgment is proper when the nonmoving party cannot establish a legal duty essential to a negligence claim, even when facts and inferences are viewed in that party’s favor.

## Conclusion

The court held that a landlord’s ownership of the property and lease-based pet restrictions, without proof the landlord owned, kept, or controlled the tenant’s dog, do not create a tort duty for injuries caused by the tenant’s dog, and it affirmed summary judgment for the landlord.


Gilbert v. Miller, 356 S.C. 25, 586 S.E.2d 861 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003)