Estate of St. John v. Schaeffler (Mar. 21, 2025, B329625) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (2025 WL 879814)
A motorcyclist struck a large animal on a rural road and then died from an ensuing collision with another vehicle. The motorcyclist’s wife sued the tenants who were raising the animals and the tenant’s landlords. The trial court granted the landlords’ motion for summary judgment.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that a landlord owes a duty with respect to dangerous conditions on a leased premises if (1) during the period of the tenancy, the landlord (a) actually knows that the property is in a dangerous condition, and (b) has the right to enter the property to cure the dangerous condition; or (2) at the time the tenancy begins or is renewed, the landlord (a) has some reason to believe there may be a dangerous condition on the premises, and (b) conducts a reasonable inspection that would reveal the dangerous condition.
Applying these principles, the Court of Appeal found the landlords did not owe a duty of care to the motorcyclist because the landlords did not actually know that the animals were unsecured. The Court of Appeal also found the landlords did not owe a duty of care when the tenant lease was renewed. During monthly renewals the landlords had no reason to know that there might be a dangerous condition on the property because there were no holes, gaps or burrows in the animal enclosure or perimeter fences. Because the landlords had no reason to know the animals were not secured, their duty to conduct a more thorough inspection was never triggered. The court explained, “out-of-possession landlords bear a less onerous duty of care under Rowland because they lack possession and control of the leased premises and because imposing a more onerous duty would interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.”
