argument that a landlord assumes a duty to protect all persons outside the property from physical
harm by simply permitting a tenant to keep a domestic dog on unfenced premises, even if there is
a risk that the dog might travel beyond the property line.
¶ 13. We agree, however, that under § 379A a landlord owes a duty to take reasonable
steps to protect persons outside the land from injuries caused by a tenant’s dog if the landlord knew
or had reason to know at the time of entering the lease that the dog in question posed an
unreasonable risk of harm to such persons. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 379A. The duty
arises from the fact that the landlord has some control over the activities of the tenant, in that the
landlord decides whether to rent to the tenant in the first place, renew or terminate the tenancy, or
to impose conditions in the lease. See Park v. Hoffard, 847 P.2d 852, 855 (Or. 1993) (explaining
that landlord-tenant relationship “has implications for a landlord’s tort liability to persons injured
off the rental property by some action or inaction of the tenant to the extent that a landlord has
control over the tenant”). By permitting a tenant to keep a dog that the landlord knows to be
vicious, the landlord could be viewed as having created the risk that led to the third person’s
injuries. See Strunk v. Zoltanski, 468 N.E.2d 13, 15 (N.Y. 1984) (explaining that by knowingly
leasing premises to owner of vicious dog, landlord could be found to have created risk that injured
plaintiff). Requiring the landlord to exercise due care to protect the public in such a situation is
consistent with the general duty of care owed to the public by a landowner who personally carries