## Facts

- Dorothy M. Tracey owned a residential rental property in Towson, Maryland, leased to Thomas C. O’Halloran and Erin Cesky.
- The tenants kept an American pit bull terrier, “Clifford,” on the leased premises in a backyard pen.
- Clifford escaped the pen, left the property, and attacked ten-year-old Dominic Solesky in an adjacent alley, causing severe, life-threatening injuries.
- Dominic’s parents sued the dog’s owners and the landlord for negligence and damages.
- The dog owners’ liabilities were discharged in bankruptcy, leaving the claims effectively proceeding against the landlord.
- At the time, Maryland dog-attack claims generally required proof that the specific dog had dangerous propensities and that the defendant knew or had reason to know of them.

## Issues

1. Whether pit bulls and pit bull crosses should be treated as inherently dangerous, eliminating the need to prove the individual dog’s prior vicious propensities and the defendant’s knowledge of them.
2. Whether a landlord who knows or has reason to know a tenant keeps a pit bull or pit bull mix on the premises, and who has the right to control the dog’s presence, may be held liable for an attack occurring on or from the premises without proof of prior viciousness.

## Decision

- The trial court granted judgment for the landlord at the close of plaintiffs’ case for lack of evidence of the landlord’s knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed, holding the evidence sufficed to submit landlord knowledge to a jury under then-existing law.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the reversal but modified Maryland common law.
- The Court held pit bulls and pit bull crosses are inherently dangerous, and that proof of breed and knowledge of breed establishes a prima facie case without proof of the specific dog’s prior viciousness.
- The case was remanded for a new trial under the newly announced standard.

## Legal Principles

- In an attack “on or from” the premises, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by proving (1) the dog was a pit bull or pit bull cross and (2) the defendant knew or had reason to know of the dog’s breed.
- Strict liability extends beyond the owner to any person with the right to control the dog’s presence on the premises, including a landlord with the right to prohibit such dogs under the lease or otherwise.
- For pit bulls and pit bull crosses, plaintiffs need not prove the individual dog’s prior dangerous propensities or the defendant’s knowledge of those propensities.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals of Maryland altered state common law by treating pit bulls and pit bull crosses as inherently dangerous and imposing strict liability on owners and landlords with knowledge of the breed and the right to control the dog’s presence for attacks occurring on or from the premises.


Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627, 50 A.3d 1075 (Md. 2012)