Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-04-2024
Case Style:
Tracey Hollingsworth v. Lonely Creek Kennels, et al.
Case Number: 44CV-21-1
Judge: John C. Threet
Court: Circuit Court, Madison County, Arkansas
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Andres Myers
Description:
Huntsville, Arkansas personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a premises liability theory.
Appellants Sonya Worley and Tim Worley d/b/a Lonely Creek Kennels own a dogbreeding business specializing in bull mastiffs. Hollingsworth began working for the Worleys in November 2018, and from the time her employment began until March 2019, Hollingsworth did not have any issues with the dogs-including a bull mastiff named Ransom-on the Worleys' property. In early to mid-February 2019, Jeanna Carrilho boarded her dog, Ransom, at the Worleys' kennel. Jeanna told the Worleys that she needed to board Ransom at Lonely Creek Kennels because (1) she and Ransom were living with her friend when Jeanna relocated for her job, and Ransom continued to live with Jeanna's friend until Jeanna found a house; (2) Jeanna purchased a house infested with bats, and it was unsafe for Ransom to live there, so Ransom continued to live with her friend; (3) Jeanna's friend passed away in December 2018, and the apartment Jeanna rented after moving out of her bat-infested house was not suitable for Ransom; and, as a result, (4) Jeanna asked the Worleys to board Ransom while she sought a suitable place to live and recovered from a surgery that was scheduled for January 2019. Jeanna further informed the Worleys that Ransom was a kind and gentle dog. The Worleys had no basis to refute these facts and did not dispute Jeanna's statement that "there was no reason for anyone, including the Worleys, to know that Ransom would act violently or that Ransom may act violently or attack anyone" or that "Ransom was other than a kind, loving, non-violent dog."
On March 19, 2019, Ransom attacked Hollingsworth while she was in Ransom's kennel. At that time, Ransom had been on the Worleys' property for approximately a month and a half with no issues. According to Hollingsworth, neither she nor the Worleys were aware that Ransom had any behavioral issues, and Hollingsworth acknowledged that the simple fact that Ransom is a bull mastiff did not make him dangerous. After the attack, Sonya Worley was notified by Jeanna that Ransom had snapped at her twice. Hollingsworth argues that the Worleys should be held responsible because they did not specifically ask Jeanna whether Ransom had ever bitten anyone.
The material facts of the case are undisputed, and the issue is one of law. Hollingsworth asks the court to deny the motion for summary judgment because she was a business invitee, and the Worleys should have made reasonable efforts to determine if Ransom had a bite history.
* * *
A property owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition for the benefit of his or her invitees. The property owner is liable if he or she has superior knowledge of an unreasonable risk of harm of which the invitee, in the exercise of ordinary care, does not or should not know. In Arkansas, a landowner generally does not owe a duty to a business invitee if a danger
is known or obvious. The duty to warn an invitee of a dangerous condition applies only to defects or conditions that are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares, pitfalls, and the like in that they are known to the inviter but not known to the invitee and would not be observed by the latter in the exercise of ordinary care. There is no duty to guard against merely possible, as opposed to probable, harm. In Van Houten v. Pritchard, 315 Ark. 688, 870 S.W.2d 377 (1994), the court recognized that dogs belong to a class of animals that is unlikely to cause injury.
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: