Is the Landlord Liable for a Tenant's Dog Bite in Alabama?

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Short answer: usually not, unless you can show the landlord actually knew the dog was dangerous. Alabama courts have been consistently reluctant to extend liability to landlords for a tenant's dog, and two real cases illustrate exactly where that line sits.

The general rule: knowledge is everything

Alabama's dog bite statutes (Ala. Code §3-6-1 and §3-1-3) target the dog's owner, not the property owner who happens to lease space to that owner. To hold a landlord liable at all, Alabama courts have required a separate showing: that the landlord had actual or constructive knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. Without that knowledge, Alabama courts have consistently found no basis for landlord liability.

Berg v. Nguyen: off-premises bites

In Berg v. Nguyen, 201 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016), the plaintiff was bitten by a tenant's dog, but the bite occurred off the leased property entirely - the plaintiff had no relationship with either the tenant or the landlord. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals upheld summary judgment for the landlords, finding that Alabama law simply does not provide for landlord liability on those facts. The court also rejected the argument that the dog's breed (a pit bull) alone was enough to impute knowledge of dangerousness to the landlords.

Scott v. Donkel: a non-tenant injured nearby

A related Alabama case involved a non-tenant child injured off the rented premises, in a public street. The court again required evidence that the landlord actually knew, or should have known, about the dog's dangerous propensities - finding none, it upheld summary judgment for the landlord. The court noted it had found no Alabama precedent specifically addressing a landlord's duty to a non-tenant for an attack occurring entirely off the landlord's premises - an area Alabama law hasn't fully settled.

When landlord liability has a real chance

The Alabama Supreme Court's earlier Gentle decision did recognize a landlord's duty to use reasonable care to protect tenants - not just third parties - from a dangerous condition (including a tenant's vicious dog) in common areas the landlord controls, but again, only once the landlord has notice of the danger. So a claim is strongest when: (1) the victim is a tenant or someone with a legitimate relationship to the property, (2) the incident happened in a common area, and (3) there's real evidence the landlord knew or should have known the dog was dangerous.

This is general information, not legal advice. Landlord liability for a tenant's dog turns heavily on the specific facts and what the landlord actually knew. Confirm how this applies to your situation with a licensed Alabama attorney.