Vt. — Eric Gross and Adrianne Gross v. Elizabeth Turner and Antonio Flores

abnormally dangerous. A separate section of the Restatement explains that the phrase “reason to

know” does not imply a duty to investigate:

Both the expression “reason to know” and “should know” are used
with respect to existent facts. These two phrases, however, differ in
that “reason to know” implies no duty of knowledge on the part of
the actor whereas “should know” implies that the actor owes another
the duty of ascertaining the fact in question. “Reason to know”
means that the actor has knowledge of facts from which a reasonable
[person] of ordinary intelligence or one of the superior intelligence
of the actor would either infer the existence of the fact in question
or would regard its existence as so highly probable that his [or her]
conduct would be predicated upon the assumption that the fact did
exist. “Should know” indicates that the actor is under a duty to
another to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the existence or non-
existence of the fact in question and that he would ascertain the
existence thereof in the proper performance of that duty.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 12, cmt. a. The use of “reason to know” in § 379A means that

the plaintiff must show that the landlord had actual knowledge of facts that would alert a reasonable

person to the dog’s vicious propensities.5 It does not create an obligation on the part of the landlord

to actively inquire into the dog’s history before permitting it to reside on the premises. See

Knapton ex rel. E.K. v. Monk, 347 P.3d 1257, 1262 (Mont. 2015) (explaining that § 379A did not