Page 4
Court of Appeal:
Lessor Owes No Duty to Motorist Who Died After Colliding With Tenant’s Pig
Majority Says Fact That Property Was Leased to Family Members, Who Maintained Land While Paying Nominal Rent, Did Not Heighten Owners’ Responsibility
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal held Friday, in a divided opinion, that lessors of a property owed no duty of care to a motorist—who died after hitting an escaped pig purportedly belonging to the tenants—even if the land was leased to family members who only paid a minimal amount of rent and were charged with maintenance obligations, and the owners inspected the premises at least twice a year.
The majority opinion, authored by Presiding Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt, applied traditional landlord-tenant principles and concluded that an owner only owes a duty to off-property individuals if he or she actually knew of the dangerous condition and had the right to enter the property to address safety concerns, or if a problem was discovered during a pre-lease or renewal inspection conducted based on reasonable notice of an issue.
Hoffstadt wrote:
“This case involves the tragic death of a motorcyclist who struck a 300-pound pig on a rural road and then died from an ensuing collision with another vehicle. The motorcyclist’s wife sued not only the tenants living on a nearby parcel of property who were raising pigs, but also the tenants’ landlords. This appeal presents the question: When does a landlord who owns but is not in possession of property owe a duty of care to protect off-property individuals from injury due to unsecured livestock?...Because the undisputed evidence in this case does not trigger the duty of care…, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the landlords.”
Justice Dorothy Kim joined in the opinion and Justice Lamar Baker dissented, arguing that the family occupying the land were not tenants but “rent-free caretakers,” rendering the owners responsible for ensuring that the property did not pose a danger to third parties.
Deadly Collision
On March 7, 2019, at approximately 3 a.m., Bradley St. John was driving his motorcycle on a road in an unincorporated area of the Antelope Valley when he struck a pig. Another motorist then collided with St. John, who died from his injuries.
At the time of the accident, Gary and Judy Schaeffler owned a two-acre parcel nearby which was secured by a chain-link fence running along the perimeter of the property. Since 2014 or 2015, the brother and sister-in-law of Judy Schaeffler, Michael and Suzanne Mountjoy, lived on the property with their children.
The parties aver that they had an oral contract under which the Mountjoys agreed to pay $275 per month—an amount that covered applicable property taxes—and to maintain and keep up the premises. The Schaefflers contend that they would make “familial visits” two or three times a year and would inspect the perimeter fence and the pig enclosure, which always appeared to be in good repair.
St. John’s widow, on behalf of her late husband’s estate and on her own behalf on a survival claim, filed a complaint against the Mountjoys and the Schaefflers, asserting claims for negligence based on a breach of the duty to “properly own, main[tain]…and/or operate their property and to not allow their pigs to escape from their property.”
She relies on photographs taken in 2022, years after the accident, which appear to show signs of disrepair to the perimeter fence and areas where the livestock were attempting to burrow beneath the enclosure.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen T. Morgan granted the Schaefflers’ motion for summary judgment, finding that they owed no duty of care as out-of-possession landlords for any dangerous conditions about which they had no actual knowledge.
Escaped Livestock
Hoffstadt said that a landowner may be held liable for negligently allowing livestock to escape from their property and enter the lanes of a nearby highway but remarked that the general rule is subject to exceptions when the land is rented out to other parties. He explained:
“Unlike other owners of property, landlords typically surrender possession and control over their property to their tenants, and those tenants have a reciprocal right to quiet enjoyment of that property without undue interference from the landlords….These out-of-possession landlords still owe a duty of care….But a landlord’s lack of possession—and the concomitant lack of control over the property—alters the scope of that duty….”
The jurist opined:
“The Schaefflers did not owe a duty of care to St. John during the Mountjoys’ tenancy. The Schaefflers knew that there were pigs on the property, but it is undisputed that the Schaefflers did not actually know that the pigs were unsecured. This lack of actual knowledge precludes the imposition of any duty during the tenancy.”
He continued:
“The Schaefflers also did not owe a duty of care to St. John at the moments in time when their lease with the Mountjoys was renewed. Here, the oral lease between the Schaefflers and Mountjoys was renewed every month….However, the Schaefflers at none of these monthly renewals had any ‘reason to know’ that there may be a dangerous condition on the property—that is to say, they had no ‘reason to know’ that the pigs were unsecured.”
Acknowledging that the plaintiff’s expert opined that the perimeter fence “fell below the standard of care” due to holes and shoddy repairs using baby gates and other items, he found the opinion irrelevant because it did not address whether there were any defects in the pig pen and “there would have to be defects in both fences before there could be a dangerous condition on the property by virtue of escaping livestock.”
Not Typical Lease
The plaintiff also argued that the agreement at issue is not a “typical lease” and so the standard out-of-possession landlord rules should not apply.
Unpersuaded, Hoffstadt commented:
“To be sure, the lease between the Schaefflers and the Mountjoys might not be an archetypical, arm’s length lease between strangers. But it is not atypical in a way that matters….Whether a lease is oral or written, or is between family members, affects neither the degree of the landlord’s control nor the threat to the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The amount of the agreed-upon rent also does not bear on the…analysis….And the Schaefflers’ familial visits two or three times a year do not show they retained control over the property sufficient to deem them to be in possession.”
He similarly dismissed an urging by the plaintiff to adopt a different rule in cases involving roaming livestock, noting the case law developed in this area typically involves the context of vicious domestic pets, saying she “cites no precedent that supports such a distinction” and “offers no explanation of why” a divergent duty of care should apply.
Baker’s View
Baker argued:
“The majority constructs an abstract legal framework derived from its survey of caselaw and then deploys that framework to make quick work of defeating tort liability for…St. John’s…death. The fault with this lies in its foundation. In spending much of its time reciting facts and holdings in prior landlord liability cases, the majority never truly grapples with the real question St. John’s estate presents for decision: whether the features of this case and the oral lease arrangement involved reveal typical landlord liability principles should not apply.”
He continued:
“[T]he Schaefflers maintained a level of control over the property that is inconsistent with the legal premise that justifies limiting a landlord’s duty of care. In fact, the summary judgment record supports a conclusion that the Mountjoys—living rent free, with an obligation to maintain the property for the Schaefflers, and subject to the Schaefflers’ periodic inspection visits—were de facto caretakers of the property rather than tenants with a clear right to and interest in enforcing quiet enjoyment of the property exclusive of its familial owners.”
Under these circumstances, the justice reasoned:
“It is undisputed the Schaefflers knew the Mountjoys were raising pigs (and other animals) on the property and knew it was therefore imperative that the perimeter fencing be in good working order. There is also evidence (not strong, but substantial enough) that would permit a factfinder to conclude the perimeter fence was in disrepair. On this record,…we should hold the Schaefflers owed a duty of care to St. John and require further proceedings to determine whether that duty was breached in a manner that proximately caused his death.”
The case is Estate of St. John v. Schaeffler, B329625.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company