I'm not in Kentucky, but that sounds absurd on its face.
A landlord does not become liable for injury caused by a tenant's dog just because the landlord "knows" information that a certain breed may be "dangerous." Liability would be predicated on knowing that a particular dog has aggressive tendencies. It has nothing to do with a particular breed having a bad reputation.
The owner was holding the leash? That's an ENTIRELY different issue. Or were you being metaphorical?
If the owner was physically in control of the dog at the time of the attack, then there may be a viable basis for suing, which would get the owner's insurance carrier into play.
P.S. Most pitbulls don't tip the scales at more than 60#, so I have some concerns about your story.
Again, I appreciate your time and opinion. BS'ing details in the story or exaggerating them doesn't help me in any event. Asking for help on a forum like this requires I provide the most accurate details possible, otherwise the advice I receive is trash (trash in, trash out). I understand your position but I don't benefit from providing you (the forum) smoke. Seems silly to ask for help but bluff those I'm asking.
The lb estimation was based on the LEO's opinion included in his police report and breed being a bulldog/pit-bull mix (dog's above normal size, probably from being kept in a house with limited exercise). The dog's owners were also heavier so I'm guessing a healthy lifestyle isn't affecting just the dog. Any concerns you have about the dogs weight are with the LEO's observation although under oath, I would say the dog wasn't a pure pitbull breed but was easily that weight/size. My lab is 85-90 and hunts/hikes with me often but the other dog had a good bit more size on him. My OP didn't get into the weeds on the breed as the question was a legal procedural question, not to the dna of the dog. I know everyone's time on here is limited and I didn't want to waste it on the dog's details.
Again, can't address your concerns regarding civil law in KY. Not sure what state your licensed in but I would tell you what I heard from different attorneys in this county/state regarding liability of the landlord. Please review and let me know if this helps respond to your statement "A landlord does not become liable for injury caused by a tenant's dog":
Kentucky has a statute, KRS 258.235(4), that creates strict liability for a dog's owner for any damage caused by the dog. Strict liability means the owner is liable regardless of any other factors, even if he did nothing wrong. The definition of owner was found in KRS 258.095(5), which included every person permits the dog to remain on or about premises owned or occupied by him. Until 2012, the courts had interpreted this statute to exclude landlords from the definition of "owner". As a result, a landlord did not was not strictly liable for dog bites on his rental property, but rather was only liable if he was negligent in relation to the dog.
The Benningfield decision in 2012 changed this. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that because when a landlord permits a dog to be housed on property that it owns, even temporarily, he qualifies as the dog's "owner" under KRS 258.095(5) and is therefore strictly liable for any damage caused by that dog on the property or within an arm's length of the property. Kentucky's New Dog-Bite Law: What Landlords Need to Know
I did a google search which yielded that information but is consistent with everything I've been told by those attorneys here. Absurd or not, hope it helps. Landlord as it relates to this situation owns the house
and occupies it. (Although that new law looks to be a minefield for landlords who allow renters/tenants to have dogs)
Lastly, to your question about the leash. Yes, homeowner was absolutely holding the 10lb leash which snapped when her 135lb dog pulled on it. The leash was still in her hand when she arrived at the dogfight and was noted by the independent witness in his statement. I actually didn't notice it and only realized it after reading their statement.
