来源: 希望和兴旺 于 2016-01-27 22:56:37
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/law/191957.html
去年11月突然收到一封律师信，信中说：我代表XX提出在XX时间在X公寓发生的狗咬事件。请填上附上的表格。如果你在事故发生时有保险，请保险公司马上联系我们，如果你没有保险，请在附表中列明。请了解如果你配合我们，你可以避免一场诉讼。但是如果10天内我们没有收到你的回复,我们就会牵连你进一个诉讼程序. 信中没有提供被咬的情况，没有账单，没有其他任何证明。
我们马上联系了公寓的租客。租客确认有其事，但是其实还不是租客的狗，是他的朋友的狗暂寄在他那里。被咬者是女邮差，被咬的地方是community里面的Public area。 租客说被咬后没有报警，没有叫动物管理协会（是这么个机构吧）的人来，后来叫了邮差的上司来，要求赔偿，租客回复他没有保险。（后来邮局把租客的邮递停了，因为不安全）。我们知道租客有狗（小犬），但是他的朋友寄放狗的事我们完全不知情，于是叫他赶快把狗送走，他说狗已经送走了。租客说他的父亲可以作证，是邮差踢了狗，狗才咬人（当然这个不重要，重要的是狗咬了人。）我们也督促租客赶紧买保险，但是买了没有，不知道。然后提醒租客自己的狗要拴好。我们也作了一些功课，我们作为房东，可能会也可能不会受到牵连。但是这种要告就告有产者的做法真让人恶心。
我们觉得自己已经做了需要做的事情，没有理睬那封信了。
前两天，来了一封挂号信，还是原来的那封信的内容，区别是右上角多了一句：2nd request.
现在我们想咨询下：1、我们需不需要回复这样的信件。不回复，是否将来不利于我们。如果回复，肯定是找律师回复。2、我们还需要做些什么吗？比如需要驱赶房客吗？他的Lease 到期了，现在是month by month.
回應
建議您讀一下這幾個資料 (也許你已經讀過,希望老貓不是浪費您的時間)
https://www.lawguru.com/articles/law/california-dog-bite-law
與下列的資料,個人的建議是如果你平常有熟識的律師,你最好問一下,這個信你必須回答,因為你的租客沒有保險,你的 landlord liability insurance 必須承擔賠償的責任,所以現在對方要求你的保險資料,您不能不理會對方的要求
同時為了普法,老貓 post 下列資料如下.....
http://dogbitelaw.com/california/liability-based-on-other-grounds-in-california
Landlord liability for dog bites inflicted by tenant's dog
Under some circumstances, a California landlord can be held liable when a dog belonging to a tenant bites a person. For example, the landlord might have been taking care of the dog, or might have failed to repair a gate or fence. In such cases, the liability of the landlord would be based upon negligence.
A commercial landlord can be held liable for a dog attack if he has actual or constructive knowledge of the dog's viciousness prior to the attack, and could have removed the dog before it injured the victim. In Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128, the court stated: "We hold that a landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the inspection of his commercial property and to remove a dangerous condition, which includes a dog, from the premises, if he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care would have known, the dog was dangerous and usually present on the premises."
In the Portillo case, the plaintiff was bitten in a liquor store by a dog owned by the tenant who was operating the business. The court noted that it is reasonably foreseeable that guard dogs in commercial establishments open to the public will injure someone. The court held that the landlord could not avoid liability by failing to inspect the premises and thereby claim that he had no knowledge of the dog.
A landlord can be held liable when a dog belonging to a tenant bites a person, if the landlord or his representatives possessed actual knowledge of the dogís viciousness prior to the attack, and could have removed the dog before it injured the victim. Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504. The essential difference between the duty of a residential landlord and that of a commercial landlord cases is that a commercial landlord has a duty to inspect the premises throughout the term of the tenancy, while a residential landlord does not because the tenant has a right of quiet enjoyment. In Uccello (supra), the court said the following about residential landlords:
"[A] duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he knew of the dog and its dangerous propensities. Because the harboring of pets is such an important part of our way of life and because the exclusive possession of rented premises normally is vested in the tenant, we believe that actual knowledge and not mere constructive knowledge is required. For this reason we hold that a landlord is under no duty to inspect the premises for the purpose of discovering the existence of a tenant's dangerous animal; only when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal, coupled with the right to have it removed from the premises, does a duty of care arise." Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504.
At the commencement of a rental term, and when it expires, a landlord of residential or commercial property has the legal duty to inspect the premises and remedy dangerous conditions. (California Civil Jury Instructions, 1006 (Landlord’s Duty); Stone v. Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 608.) An inadequate fence or gate in need of repair or replacement is a dangerous condition if the landlord knows that it is to be used for the purpose of confining a dog or another animal that, if not confined, can cause damage. (Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 446.)
Liability can be established even where the accident happens off the landlord's property. For example, in Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1832, a tenant's dogs attacked plaintiff four blocks away from where the dogs lived. The plaintiff sued the dog's owner and the owner's residential landlord. The court held that the landlord could be liable, explaining the law as follows:
"If the dog is taken on a leash by its owner, off the premises, prevention of an attack by the dog may be beyond the landlord's control. But if the dog escapes the landlord's property because of defects in that property, the landlord is liable for the off-site injuries."
Landlord liability for failure to warn about a vicious dog in the neighborhood
In Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal. App. 3d 412 it was held that a landlord in California has no duty to warn his tenants about the presence of a vicious dog in the neighborhood.
