## Facts

- A tenant leased an apartment in a complex owned by Amberwood and managed by Monocle under a written lease incorporating house rules, including a strict no-pets provision treated as a lease default.
- Despite the no-pets rule, the tenant kept a pit bull (“Rampage”) in the apartment and sometimes chained it outside on the complex grounds.
- Complex employees had repeated encounters with the dog, described it as vicious, and reported the dog’s presence and aggressive behavior to management.
- Shanita Matthews visited the tenant with her 16-month-old son, Tevin Williams.
- The tenant left the apartment briefly, leaving Matthews and Tevin alone with the pit bull.
- The pit bull attacked and killed Tevin while Matthews attempted to rescue him.
- Matthews sued Amberwood and Monocle for negligence (wrongful death and survival claims) and for emotional distress based on witnessing her child’s death.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord and property manager who know a tenant keeps a highly dangerous dog in violation of a no-pets clause, and who have power under the lease to enforce removal, owe a duty of reasonable care to protect the tenant’s social guests from injury inside the tenant’s apartment.
2. Whether a mother may recover damages for severe emotional distress when she directly witnesses and attempts to prevent the fatal mauling of her child.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the intermediate appellate court and reinstated the plaintiffs’ judgment on the duty issue.
- The court held the landlord and management company owed a duty of reasonable care where they had actual knowledge of a highly dangerous dog and retained contractual control to abate the condition by enforcing the lease.
- The court held Matthews could recover for severe emotional distress based on her direct perception of, and involvement in, the fatal attack on her child.
- The jury verdict in Matthews’s favor was reinstated (subject to adjustments not central to the duty analysis).

## Legal Principles

- A landlord’s tort duty regarding dangers on leased premises may arise when the landlord has actual knowledge of a dangerous condition and retains sufficient control to correct it.
- A tenant’s highly dangerous dog can constitute a dangerous condition on the premises when the landlord knows of the dog’s presence and vicious propensities.
- A no-pets clause treated as a lease default can supply contractual control allowing a landlord to require removal of the dog or terminate the tenancy; failure to take reasonable steps in light of foreseeable serious harm may constitute negligence.
- Landlord duty is not categorically barred because the injury occurs inside the tenant’s unit; knowledge, foreseeability, and retained control can extend the duty to lawful social guests.
- A plaintiff may recover for severe emotional distress when the distress is directly caused by contemporaneously witnessing a close family member’s injury or death and is supported by evidence of serious emotional harm.

## Conclusion

Maryland’s highest court held that a landlord and property manager may be liable when they know a tenant keeps an extremely dangerous dog in violation of a no-pets lease provision and fail to take reasonable steps available under the lease to remove the danger, and it permitted a mother’s recovery for severe emotional distress after she witnessed her child’s fatal mauling.


Matthews v. Amberwood Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, Inc., 719 A.2d 119 (Md. 1998)