Yes, but apparently it is Blackstone's fault because they should've known dangerous dogs were on the property, especially after they chewed through the doors.
Posted on 05/21/2025 5:32:07 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Are you under the impression property owners are not accountable for what happens on their property as long as they own thousands of them?
All you have to do to in order to shirk responsibility is just be rich?
Sounds like the democrat method.
Two questions would decide the issue if I was on the jury.
1 Did the lease provisions prohibit dangerous dogs? If yes, goto 3.
2 Did the property manager hired by the owners regularly check for lease violations, including dangerous dogs. If Yes, Goto End. If No, goto 3.
3 Find Liability and assess punitive damages based on need to send a message to the New York Bankers.
End.
Been a while since I’ve written programs. Feel free to port it to something modern.
One property or 63,000.
Landlords are not accountable.
AI....
In Texas, landlords are generally not automatically liable for tenant’s dog attacks. To hold a landlord responsible, the victim must prove the landlord had prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous behavior and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the attack. Texas courts generally place the primary responsibility on the dog owner, but landlords can be liable if they knew the dog was dangerous and failed to act.
Jiryiah?
The lady and renter owned the dogs?
Why do you need three dogs?
Why would you leave your kid with someone with three pit bulls?
Blackstone....
Any relation to Blackrock?
Also, any tenant that keeps a prohibited dog in violation of their lease (and I'll bet this was the case here) needs to be swiftly evicted.
Permission to keep dangerous dogs in rentals has pretty much gone the way of being allowed to smoke in rental properties. One complication is that pitbull owners almost always lie and claim their dogs are some mixed-breed hybrid that doesn't violate the lease. Or a service animal.
Yes, but apparently it is Blackstone's fault because they should've known dangerous dogs were on the property, especially after they chewed through the doors.
Where was her man?
The responsible party has not money, so let’s go after the deepest pockets.
They’ll probably get a settlement of some kind because it’s cheaper than going to court.
The problem is human loyalty and respect has been bred out of the species. They now know only one thing, to kill each other and whatever happens to get in their way like humans...
They are no longer “DOGS”.
“My clients are looking for answers ... “ this Saul Goodman
Blackstone: a trillion $$ in assets. More like .. deep pockets.
>There are no bad dogs, just bad owners
>These were good boys who dint do nuffin.
AKA The Ghetto Lottery.
Yeah. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff.
Because it is the responsibility of the landlord to know if there were unsafe conditions and ongoing violations of the terms of the lease.
The same applies if you rent out one property or thousands.
If you can not handle that then you should not be renting.
I’ve seen some beautiful pit bulls. I think they all should be outlawed and shot. They cannot be trusted, no matter how they have been raised. Flame away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.