A Yankton mother whose child was mauled by a pit bull in a trailer park is appealing a lower court decision that the landlord is not liable. The mother’s attorney says the lower court granted summary judgment to the landlord, but the case should have been heard by a jury.
The South Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday, Oct. 6, at the Knudson School of Law at USD.
David King represents Teresa Burgi, whose 12-year-old son, Kaleb, was injured by a pit bull at Eastwinds Court in Yankton.
On September 23, 2017, Kaleb was playing basketball with other children on a private dead-end street in the park, using a basketball hoop located at the front of Ronald Pasman’s lot. The ball bounced into Pasman’s yard, and Kaleb ran to retrieve it. That’s when the pit bull attacked him.
King said the boy has had eight facial reconstruction surgeries and now suffers from seizures.
He said the landlord, John Blackburn, bears liability for the attack because he should have known the dangerous dog was on Pasman’s property, in violation of his lease.
King told justices that Pasman had two large “Beware of Dog” signs posted in front of his home, visible from the street, for four or five years. He says the property manager made daily inspections, and Blackburn visited the court several times a year.
“I think a reasonable juror could say, ‘You know, we do think you have notice. We do think you know…knew that it was a [sic] aggressive animal.’ And I think it’s a fact issue. And I think it’s inappropriate for summary judgment,” King said.
The attorney for the other side is Mark Arndt. He said Blackburn and Eastwinds management had no knowledge that the dog was there or that it was dangerous. And he noted that the dog attack happened on leased property, not in a common area of the park.
Arndt argued that the dog’s owner might be liable, but Blackburn and Eastwinds are third parties, and so summary judgment was appropriate.
“The plaintiff can’t get past the fact that the legal duty that’s owed in this case is a duty for the court to decide, and given the landlord-tenant relationship, that legal duty doesn’t exist,” he said.
Arndt said the lease does prohibit dangerous animals, but it also provides that tenants are responsible for their own pets.
Justices will deliberate and issue an opinion at a later date.
