Does Maryland's presumption apply to a landlord?

No. The presumption in Courts and Judicial Proceedings §3-1901(a) is directed at the owner of the dog. For anyone else, subsection (b) retains the common law of dog attacks as it existed on April 1, 2012, without regard to the breed or heritage of the dog.

What must a victim prove against a landlord?

Under the retained common law, that the dog previously acted in a vicious or dangerous way and that the landlord knew of it. Showing only that the dog was a particular breed, such as a pit bull, is not enough.

Was it different for pit bulls at one time?

Yes. For incidents between April 27, 2012 and April 7, 2014, Tracey v. Solesky imposed strict liability on pit bull owners and their landlords. That breed-specific rule ended when the current statute took effect on April 8, 2014.

Can a landlord be liable for a dog in a common area?

A landlord who reserves control of passageways, stairways and other common areas must use ordinary care to keep them reasonably safe for tenants, their guests and invitees. A dangerous dog the landlord knew about in such an area can support a negligence claim.

Does it matter if the landlord tried to evict the dog's owner?

It can. In Matthews v. Amberwood Associates, a landlord who knew of a dangerous dog could not defend on the ground it lacked time to evict the tenant, because it had taken no steps to start an eviction.

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

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

The owner-friendly presumption stops at the owner. A landlord is judged under an older, tougher standard for victims.

The presumption doesn't reach landlords

Under §3-1901(b), a claim against someone other than the dog's owner is governed by the common law of dog attacks as it stood on April 1, 2012, whatever the dog's breed. A victim has to prove the dog had previously acted in a vicious or dangerous way, and that the landlord knew; breed alone isn't enough.

A brief window for pit bulls

For incidents from April 27, 2012 to April 7, 2014, Tracey v. Solesky made pit bull owners and their landlords strictly liable. That breed-specific rule ended when the current statute took effect on April 8, 2014.

Common areas and failing to act

A landlord who keeps control of stairways, passageways and other common areas must use ordinary care to keep them reasonably safe. And in Matthews v. Amberwood Associates, a landlord who knew of a dangerous dog couldn't excuse itself on the ground that it lacked time to evict, because it never started an eviction. Both are common-law ideas the statute preserves.

The tenant-owner stays primary

The owner of the dog remains the main target, with the presumption and the dog-at-large rule working against them — and contributory negligence remains available to every defendant.

Injured in Maryland?

A local personal injury attorney can review your claim — many offer a free consultation.

Talk to a Maryland attorney

Official sources

Maryland General Assembly fiscal note (2013) — contributory negligence

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 or controlled. Confirm how this applies to your situation with a licensed Maryland attorney.