ÿWPC³ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ U,- 0dY U,½ U>é B)'DCP AM“U*à B #'v~JvÓÈ D3› 0@Î AOÆ] 0D# D/g B–˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- '(D)*D+,-D./Ó€9Gav 3|x92 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌMarch€29,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€3XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›BARBARA€œMcKENNA›,€Individuallyà à)Ìand€as€next€friend€of€CHRISTOPHERà à)ÌœMcKENNA›,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àœPlaintiff/Appellant,›à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSumner›€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€11931„CÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9510„CV„00438ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#&";+'h|(` ç `€€Lß›JACKIE€JACKSON€and€EMMA€JONES,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€œSUMNER›€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€œGALLATIN›,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€THOMAS€œGOODALL›,€JUDGEÌÌÌJeff€K.€WalkerÌGOODMAN€&€WALKERÌ124€South€Court€SquareÌSpringfield,€Tennessee€37172ÌÌJAMES€M.€HUNTERÌ182€West€Franklin€StreetÌœGallatin›,€Tennessee€37066„2766ÌATTORNEYS€FOR€œPLAINTIFF/APPELLANT›ÌÌÌMark€T.€SmithÌKELLY€&€SMITHÌ121€Public€SquareÌœGallatin›,€Tennessee€37066ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÇBARBARA€œMcKENNA›,€Individuallyà à€)Ìand€as€next€friend€of€CHRISTOPHERà à€)ÌœMcKENNA›,à àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àœPlaintiff/Appellant,›à àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àœSumner›€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àNo.€€11931„CÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)à à01„A„01„9510„CV„00438ÌJACKIE€JACKSON€and€EMMA€JONES,à à€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à€)ÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€captioned€plaintiff€has€appealed€from€a€summary€judgment€dismissing€her€suitÏagainst€Emma€Jones€for€injuries€to€Christopher€œMcKenna›,€a€œminor,›€by€a€dog€owned€and€keptÏby€Jackie€Jackson€on€premises€œrented€to€her€and€owned›€by€Emma€œJones.›€€œPlaintiffððs›€suitÏagainst€Jackie€Jackson€resulted€in€a€judgment€for€the€plaintiff€from€which€no€appeal€has€beenÏprosecuted.ÌÌà àThus,€the€only€issue€in€this€appeal€is€the€liability€of€the€owner„landlord€for€damageÏinflicted€by€a€dog€owned€and€kept€by€a€tenant€on€the€premises€belonging€to€the€landlord.ÌÌà àThe€undisputed€facts€are€as€follows:Ìà àThe€defendant,€Jackie€œJackson,›€is€the€daughter€of€the€defendant€Emma€Jones€and,€at€theÏtime€of€the€subject€injury,€was€living€in€a€residence€rented€from€her€mother.€€At€the€time€of€theÏinjury,€Ms.€Jackson€owned€and€kept€in€a€pen€on€the€premises€two€œRottweiler›€dogs,€a€male€andÏa€female.€€Some€puppies€of€the€female€were€in€the€pen€with€her.€€Access€to€the€pen€was€by€aÏgate€which€had€a€latch€which€would€ð ðjust€drop€down.ðð€€The€gate€was€not€locked€and€was€ð ðeasyÏto€open.ððÌÌà àOn€June€19,€1992,€at€about€noon,€the€plaintiff,€and€her€male€friend€arrived€at€the€homeÏof€Jackie€Jackson.€€They€desired€to€prepare€and€eat€lunch€and€to€shower.€€They€wereÏaccompanied€by€the€4€ðð€year€old€son€of€plaintiff€œ€named›€Chris.€€Shortly€after€arrival,€ChrisÏwas€told€to€go€outside€and€play€in€the€swing€set€in€the€front€yard.€€After€a€few€minutes€heÏð ðwent€to€go€to€the€dog.ðð€€He€testified:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€opened€the€beware€of€the€dog€sign€gate.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€female€œRottweiler›€attacked€and€injured€Chris.€€Jackie€Jackson€testified€withoutÏcontradiction€that€the€female€had€never€attacked€or€injured€anyone€before.€€She€testified€ð ðaboutÏfour€years€agoðð€(two€years€before€the€injury€of€Chris)€before€the€completion€of€the€fence,€theÏmale€dog€had€injured€a€child€in€the€neighborhood,€resulting€in€payment€of€emergency€roomÏexpenses€and€medicine€cost.ÌÌà àThe€appellee,€Ms.€Jones,€admitted€that€Ms.€Jackson€told€her€of€the€previous€injury€of€aÏchild€by€the€male€œRottweiler.›ÌÌà àThere€is€no€evidence€of€œa›€previous€vicious€act€by€the€female€œRottweiler.›ÌÌà àAs€previously€stated,€the€Trial€Court€granted€summary€judgment€dismissing€Ms.€Jones.€ÏOn€appeal,€plaintiff€presents€only€one€issue€in€the€following€form:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€granting€the€Motion€for€SummaryÏJudgment€of€the€defendant€landlord,€Emma€Jones,€for€injuriesÏand€damages€sustained€by€the€plaintiffs€as€œresult›€of€the€plaintiff,ÏChristopher€œMcKenna›,€being€attacked€by€Rottweiler€dogsÏlocated€on€the€leased€premises?ÌÌÌÓÓà àThere€is€no€evidence€that€Christopher€œMcKenna›€was€attacked€by€œRottweiler›€òòdogsóóÏ(plural).€€All€of€the€evidence€is€that€Christopher€œMcKenna›€was€attacked€by€the€femaleÏœRottweiler,›€and€òònotóó€by€the€male€œRottweiler.›€€In€fact,€appellantsðð€ð ðStatement€of€the€FactsððÏasserts:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhen€Christopher€entered€the€pen,€the€female€Rottweiler€dogÏattacked€him€causing€severe€injuries.€€(Barbara€œMcKenna›€œDepo›.ÏPg.€37).̛̜ÌÓÓà àThe€owner€or€keeper€is€not€liable€for€injury€inflicted€by€his€domestic€animal€unless€theÏowner€has€notice€that€the€animal€was€accustomed€or€disposed€to€injure€persons.€€However,Ïwhere€an€owner€or€keeper€has€notice€or€knowledge€of€the€disposition€of€the€animal€to€injureÏœpersons,›€the€owner€or€keeper€is€obligated€to€confine€or€restrain€the€animal€to€prevent€harm€toÏothers.€€If€a€person€harbors€a€dog€accustomed€to€bite,€or€allows€it€to€frequent€his€premises,€heÏis€liable€for€injuries€inflicted€by€the€dog,€although€not€the€owner€of€it.€€òòœMissio›€v.€Williams,€óó129ÏTenn.€504,€167€S.W.€473€(1914);€òòœSherfey›€v.€Bartley,€óó36€Tenn.€(€4€œSneed›)€58€(1856).ÌÌà àA€landlord€is€liable€to€a€guest€of€the€tenant€for€injuries€resulting€from€the€unsafeÏcondition€of€the€premises€which€was€either€known€to€and€concealed€by€the€landlord€or€which,Ïby€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€and€diligence,€might€have€been€known€to€him.€€òòœHines›€v.ÏœWillcox›,€óó96€Tenn.€328,€34€S.W.€420,€34€œA.L.R.›€824,€54€œAm.St.Rep›.€823.ÌÌà àA€landlord€can€be€held€liable€where€the€injury€was€made€possible€by€the€failure€of€theÏlandlord€to€exercise€reasonable€care€under€the€circumstances.€€òòœTedder›€v.€œRaskin›,€óóTenn.€App.Ï1987,€728€œS.W.2d›€343.ÌÌà àGenerally,€a€landlord€is€not€liable€for€injuries€inflicted€by€an€animal€owned€or€harboredÏby€a€tenant.€€òòœZwinge›€v.€Love,€óó325€œN.Y.S.2d›€107€(1971).€€However,€if,€during€the€term€of€theÏleasehold€a€landlord€becomes€aware€of€the€fact€that€his€tenant€is€harboring€an€animal€withÏvicious€propensities,€and€if€he€had€control€of€the€premises€or€other€capability€to€remove€orÏconfine€the€animal,€he€(the€landlord)€owes€a€duty€to€protect€third€persons€from€injury.€€òòœCronin›Ïv.€œChrosniak›,€óó536€œN.Y.S.2d›€287€(1988).ÌÌà àNo€published€Tennessee€authority€is€found€on€the€liability€of€a€landlord€for€injury€to€aÏguest€of€the€tenant€by€an€animal€owned€and€or€kept€by€the€tenant.€€However,€the€foregoingÏauthorities€indicate€that€liability€of€the€landlord€requires€(1)€knowledge€or€notice€of€the€viciousÏpropensity€of€the€dog€in€question,€and€(2)€sufficient€retained€control€over€the€leased€premises€toÏafford€opportunity€to€require€the€tenant€to€remove€the€animal€or€safely€restrain€it.ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€it€does€not€appear€that€the€landlord,€Ms.€Jones,€had€any€notice€thatÏthe€female€dog€which€injured€œthe€child›€had€ever€evidenced€any€vicious€disposition€toward€aÏhuman.ÌÌà àNo€authority€has€been€cited€or€found€that,€where€two€dogs€are€confined€in€the€sameÏpen,€notice€of€a€vicious€act€by€one€of€the€dogs€is€notice€of€a€vicious€disposition€of€the€other.ÌÌà àIt€may€be€argued€that€the€landlordððs€knowledge€that€the€dogs€were€œkept›€in€an€unlockedÏpen€could€represent€notice€that€the€unlocked€pen€was€a€dangerous€condition€of€the€premises€forÏwhich€the€landlord€could€be€held€liable.€€This€Court€is€not€able€to€agree.€€There€is€no€showingÏthat€the€latch€on€the€gate€was€inadequate€to€confine€the€dogs.€€A€gate€that€could€be€opened€by€aÍ4€ðð€year€old€child€is€not€òòipso€factoóó€a€dangerous€condition.€€Until€the€landlord€was€on€noticeÏof€children€playing€in€the€vicinity,€there€could€be€no€reasonable€ground€to€require€the€landlordÏto€see€that€the€gate€was€fastened€so€that€a€4€ðð€year€old€child€could€not€open€it.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€dismissing€the€suit€against€Ms.ÏJones€is€affirmed.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€plaintiff„appellant.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Trial€Court€for€necessary€further€procedures.ÌÌà àAffirmed€and€Remanded.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE