Court Rules that Washington Apartment Complex Is Not Liable for Dog Attack

The Washington Court of Appeals held last month in an unpublished opinion that a woman injured at an apartment complex by a tenant’s dog could not recover from the owner or manager of the apartment complex. The Court based its decision on the well-settled rule in Washington that only the owner, keeper, or harborer of an animal is liable for injuries that it inflicts on others. Liability flows exclusively from ownership or direct control of an animal.

The injured woman argued that the owner and manager of the apartment complex should be held liable because they breached their affirmative duty to maintain the common area in which the incident occurred in a reasonably safe condition. The Court rejected that argument in a telling footnote, pointing out that it ruled in that manner in a similar case fifteen years ago and was overruled in unequivocal fashion by the Washington Supreme Court.

Washington condominium and homeowners associations are sometimes sued in connection with injuries that occur in common areas. Sometimes the owner will have a case, but in other instances (such as those involving dog-inflicted injuries) the owner will have no legal right to recover damages from the association. An attorney who is experienced in community association law can help your board know which lawsuits are all bark and no bite.

Goat Dispute Highlights Best Practices for Covenant Enforcement

A North Carolina couple has won a legal battle with their homeowners association to keep two Nigerian dwarf goats named Fred and Barney in their yard. The association’s covenants state as follows: "No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot except that horses, dogs, cats and other pets may be kept provided they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes." Several neighbors complained to the board about the smell and noise caused by the goats, so the board ordered the owners to remove them. Litigation ensued, and a judge eventually ruled that Fred and Barney should be permitted to stay because they are pets.

As the cliché goes, life is not black and white. Gray is a popular color in the world of law. Many covenants can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way. Boards should make an effort to play devil’s advocate and view covenants from owners’ perspectives before issuing demands or initiating litigation.

Another lesson that can be gleaned from this story is that it is sometimes better to focus on minimizing the negative effects of a disputed behavior rather than attempting to end that behavior. For example, it may be possible to address the goat odor issue by requiring more frequent bathing and waste removal. It may also be possible to address the goat noise issue by restricting them to certain portions of the property. Boards should always be on the lookout for creative approaches that lead to win-win solutions.

Dog Waste Problem May Cause Board to Implement Drastic Measures

The Scarlett Place Condominium in Baltimore is in the midst of a pooch poop predicament. According to a recent story in The Baltimore Sun, one board member believes that the amount of dog waste that is regularly left in the common areas has gotten out of hand, and he has proposed a novel way to identify the culprits – DNA testing. All dog owners would be assessed $50 per animal to cover testing costs and $10 per month to cover removal costs. A Tennessee-based company would create a database representing all pets at the Condominium and match offending samples to a particular dog. The dog’s owner would then pay a $500 fine.

Boards of Washington condominium and homeowners associations should be cautious when contemplating new regular assessments on a specific group of owners. Assessments must generally be charged on the basis of the percentages or values found in the association’s declaration or covenants. The Washington Condominium Act does permit all condominium associations in the state to charge common expenses benefiting fewer than all of the units exclusively to the units that are benefited, but only if such authority is explicitly provided for in their declarations. If an association’s declaration does not provide for the authority to charge certain common expenses to benefited owners, the declaration can be amended to give the association that power.

There are other possible ways to deal with dog waste that do not involve new assessments on dog owners or fines for noncompliance with removal rules. For example, dog owners could be persuaded to periodically assign one of their number to pick up the poop. The association could also include a line item in the annual budget to pay an owner to perform this task.