Robison v. Stokes
| Decision Date | 06 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 82479,No. 1,82479,1 |
| Citation | 882 P.2d 1105,1994 OK CIV APP 85 |
| Parties | 1994 OK CIV APP 85 Raymond ROBISON, Appellant, v. Walter STOKES, Defendant, and Dora Frances Seals, Appellee. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; James Blevins, Trial Judge.
Daniel M. Davis, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Stephen L. Stratton, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a trial court order sustaining Defendant Dora Frances Seals' motion for summary judgment and dismissing her from Plaintiff Raymond Robison's lawsuit. The lawsuit arose out of a dog bite to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was an invitee on the premises owned by Defendant Seals and rented to Defendant Walter Stokes. Plaintiff dismissed his action against Stokes without prejudice.
Affidavits and deposition testimony attached to Appellee's motion present the following undisputed facts. One Lee Spencer was the property manager for Seals. Spencer arranged the lease to Stokes. Stokes had never met Seals. Stokes was authorized to have pets under the lease. Stokes had been in possession of the property for about six days before the dog bite incident. Neither Seals nor Spencer knew anything about the dog. The bite incident happened inside the house. The dog was a great dane/pit bull mix. Stokes had put up a sign warning of the dog.
On appeal Plaintiff admits Seals owed no duty to him under the strict liability statute pertaining to dog bites. 4 O.S. 1991 § 42.1. His claim is based on common law premises liability. He cites Beatty v. Dixon, 408 P.2d 339 (Okla.1965), and Rogers v. Hennessee, 602 P.2d 1033 (Okla.1979), as authority for imposing a duty on Seals to warn persons of any danger of which the owner knew, or should have known, which was unknown to the invitee. However, in both Beatty and Rogers, slip and fall cases, the owner was in the possession and control of the premises. The issue in those decisions was whether the owner should have been aware of water on the floor.
Plaintiff further cites Moores v. Rumsey, 169 Okla. 103, 36 P.2d 15 (1934). In that case the actual dangerous condition was created by the landlord and allowed to exist. Here there is no evidence of any knowledge by Seals of the presence of the dog, let alone that it could be dangerous.
The leading Oklahoma Supreme Court decision dealing with liability for harboring a biting dog is Hampton By and Through Hampton v. Hammons, 743 P.2d 1053 (Okla.1987). There, the dog was owned by the Hammons' son. The Supreme Court held that even though the Hammons were not the "owners" of the dog, they were potentially liable for any injury it might cause.
We find Bishop By...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warner v. Hillcrest Medical Center
...890 P.2d 881 (Okla.1994); McKinney v. Harrington, 855 P.2d 602 (Okla.1993); Chase v. Parry, 326 P.2d 809 (Okla.1958); Robison v. Stokes, 882 P.2d 1105 (Okla.Ct.App.1994).11 See n. ...
-
Swain v. Gafford
...owner to investigate the dog's nature. See Georgianna v. Gizzy , 483 N.Y.S.2d 892, 894 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984) ; Robison v. Stokes , 882 P.2d 1105, 1106 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).Here, Swain presented no evidence that Mary took affirmative steps to assume a duty of care regarding Pompom. Foremost......
-
Ard v. Garcia, 65488
...that requiring a landlord to investigate into a tenant's dog's history would be "oppressive and unreasonable"); Robison v. Stokes, 882 P.2d 1105, 1106 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994) (explaining that a tenant's contractual right to keep a dog is not tantamount to a landlord's approval and knowledge ......
-
Eastin v. Aggarwal
...tenant's dog. See Hampton v. Hammons, 1987 OK 77, 743 P.2d 1053; Bishop v. Carroll, 1994 OK CIV APP 37, 872 P.2d 407; Robison v. Stokes, 1994 OK CIV APP 85, 882 P.2d 1105. Nevertheless, Eastin asserted that even if Appellees were not liable as landlords or for "their failure to evict a tena......