Accordingly, it is their assertion that if Turner had contacted the police in the town where the
Pearos previously resided, she would have learned of prior aggressive behavior by the dogs. This
argument falls short for several reasons.
¶ 17. First, this Court has never held that a dog’s breed alone is sufficient to put its owners
or others on notice that it poses an unreasonable risk of harm, or that pit bulls or other breeds are
dangerous per se. In Vermont, liability in dog-bite cases has always depended on the propensities
of the individual animal. See, e.g., Martin, 2014 VT 55, ¶ 8; Hillier v. Noble, 142 Vt. 552, 556-
57, 458 A.2d 1101, 1104 (1983); Carr v. Case, 135 Vt. 524, 525, 380 A.2d 91, 93 (1977); Godeau
v. Blood, 52 Vt. 251, 254 (1880). Even if we were to consider departing from this longstanding
precedent, plaintiffs’ sweeping claim that pit bulls are an inherently dangerous breed lacks any
evidentiary support whatsoever. They therefore have failed to establish the underlying premise
for their argument that Turner owed a duty based solely on the dogs’ breed.4
4
In addition to the lack of evidence that pit bulls are a dangerous breed, there is also no
evidence in the summary judgment record that Turner knew or believed the dogs were pit bulls.
When asked if the dogs were pit bulls, Turner stated, “I don’t know. They’re mutts.” She testified
at her deposition that her sister had a pit bull and that the Pearos’ dogs did not look like pit bulls
7
¶ 18. Moreover, the Restatement itself makes clear that landlords are not obligated to
conduct background checks on tenants’ pets. Liability under § 379A turns on whether a landlord
“knew or had reason to know” at the time of the lease that the particular animal in question is