summary judgment, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the allegations in the pleadings, but
must come forward with admissible evidence to raise a dispute regarding the facts. Alpstetten
Ass’n v. Kelly, 137 Vt. 508, 514, 408 A.2d 644, 647 (1979); V.R.C.P. 56(c) (requiring factual
assertions at summary judgment stage to be supported by admissible evidence).
¶ 9. To prevail on their negligence claims, plaintiffs had to prove that each defendant
breached a duty of care owed to plaintiffs, thereby causing them harm. O’Connell v. Killington,
Ltd., 164 Vt. 73, 76, 665 A.2d 39, 42 (1995). The only issue in this appeal is whether defendants
owed a legal duty to plaintiffs. The existence of a duty “is primarily a question of law” for the
court to decide. Langle v. Kurkul, 146 Vt. 513, 519, 510 A.2d 1301, 1305 (1986).
3
I. Liability of Landlord
¶ 10. We first consider whether the Pearos’ landlord, Elizabeth Turner, owed a duty to
protect third persons outside of the leased premises from harm caused by the Pearos’ dogs.
Plaintiffs argue that Turner is legally responsible for the injuries suffered by Eric Gross because
she permitted the Pearos to keep aggressive dogs on her property without inquiring into the history
of the dogs or causing a fence to be erected prior to the tenancy.2
¶ 11. Plaintiffs’ argument is based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 379A, which
provides:
A lessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to persons
outside of the land caused by activities of the lessee or others on the
land after the lessor transfers possession if, but only if,
(a) the lessor at the time of the lease consented to such activity or
knew that it would be carried on, and