Page 4
— Property Management Quarterly — April 2016
CBRE knows Denver. Through our industry leading perspectives, scale and local connectivity, we deliver outcomes that drive
business and bottom-line performance for every client we serve in Denver. How can we help transform your real estate into
real advantage?
LOCAL
ADVANTAGE.
T
his is the first in a series of
articles that deal with com-
mercial real estate manage-
ment, leasing and landlord-
tenant issues. As a property
manager, it is important to discuss
with legal counsel potential liabil-
ity issues that rear their heads on a
regular basis and then inform own-
ership and receive their input.
Did you know that according to the
Insurance Information Institute, dogs
bite about 4.5 million people every
year in the U.S.? When I read this
statistic and thought about the trend
in which employees are allowed to
bring their dogs into the workplace,
I called Amanda Halstead. I received
the following informative responses
and great counsel.
Sessions:
Is there any liability for a
property owner to allow tenants to
bring their dogs to work?
Halstead:
As is typical of my profes-
sion, I must answer that question
with the words, “it depends.”
Generally speaking, a property
manager would not be liable for an
injury inflicted by an animal that
does not belong to the property
manager. If, however, he knew or
had reason to know that the dog was
dangerous, the property manager
could be held liable for damages,
even punitive damages. In Vigil ex.
rel. Vigil v. Payne, 725 P.2d 1155 (Colo.
App. 1986), the court held that by
leasing the premises to tenants with
a dog known to be threatening, the
landlord knowingly created a “clear
potential for injury” and was held
liable.
C.R.S. Section 13-21-115, the Colo-
rado Premises Lia-
bility Statute, pro-
vides a mechanism
through which a
manager could be
held liable. This
statute generally
provides that the
manager may be
liable for its “unrea-
sonable failure to
exercise reasonable
care with respect to
dangers of which
the landlord actu-
ally knew or should
have known.”
Irrespective of whether a property
manager or building owner ulti-
mately will be found liable for inju-
ries caused by a tenant’s dog, they
should anticipate being named as a
party in any lawsuit initiated in con-
nection with an injury occurring on
the property. Before allowing dogs
on the property, I would recommend
that the manager confirm that the
liability insurance policy provides
coverage for injuries caused by dogs.
I also would recommend including
language in the leases that require
the tenant to do the same, with poli-
cies naming the building owner and
manager as an additional insured.
Policies should be carefully reviewed
to confirm whether any particular
dog breeds would be omitted from
coverage.
Sessions:
I have heard that Colo-
rado has a “one dog bite rule.” Is
that true and how does this apply to
owners of commercial properties?
Halstead:
The “One Bite Rule” is
sometimes known
as the “First Bite
Rule” or the “First
Bite Free Rule.”
The idea behind
this rule is that an
owner should not
be liable for any
injuries caused
to the first victim
of his or her dog.
There is, how-
ever, no such rule
shielding pet own-
ers from injuries
caused by a dog’s
first bite in the
state of Colorado. Instead, C.R.S. Sec-
tion 13-21-124 provides that a person
who suffers serious bodily injury
may bring a civil action to recover
economic damages against the dog’s
owner regardless of the dog owner’s
knowledge or lack of knowledge of
the dog’s viciousness or dangerous
propensities.
In Colorado, a pet owner is strictly
liable for the acts of his pets. In other
words, he is liable for injuries caused
by his pet, regardless of whether he
knew or had any reason to know
that the dog might injure someone.
These concepts generally apply to
dog owners, as opposed to property
managers of tenant’s with dogs.
Sessions:
Are there any dogs that
cannot be brought into the work-
place? I understand that Aurora does
not allow pit bulls.
Halstead:
Any manager who per-
mits dogs on site should consider
instituting rules and regulations in
connection with such consent. Those
rules and regulations should prohibit
any breeds that are not permitted
under any applicable laws, codes
or ordinances, including any city
ordinances. Moreover, those rules
should prohibit any breed that might
be omitted from coverage under the
property manager or tenant’s general
liability policy.
Any such rules should be uni-
formly enforced and should include,
without limitation, a requirement
that all pets comply with any and all
applicable laws, including any pet
licensing requirements and that any
pets be up-to-date on their vaccina-
tions.
Sessions:
Any other considerations
that a property manager and owner-
ship should be aware of?
Halstead:
Temperament and liabil-
ity are not the only factors that
should be considered by a manager.
A manager should keep in mind that
not all tenants, invitees and custom-
ers are dog lovers. Moreover, some of
those folks may be allergic to dogs or
have a fear of dogs.
Also, a manager can anticipate
increased costs in connection with
the removal of pet waste, which
might be offset by the charging of
pet rent. The manager might want
to reserve the right – at any time
and for any reason or no reason at
all – to remove a particular dog from
the property or to revoke all tenants’
rights to have dogs on site.
Putting clear rules and guidelines
in place at the outset is an absolute
must for any property manager
should a manager elect to permit
pets on site.
s
Steven S.
Sessions
CEO, Sessions
Group LLC, Denver
Amanda H.
Halstead, Esq.
Member, Mills,
Schmitz, Halstead,
Zaloudek LLC,
Denver
