Pet liability for landlords

[Dave Fagundes]

I have a tenant who wants to get a dog. She's a good tenant (as evidenced by the fact that she raised the pet issue with me rather than just doing it), and I want to accommodate her to maintain our positive relationship. I've read around these forums that the industry-standard is to boost rent $25 for a pet, which seems reasonable.

That said, I wonder whether the presence of a dog also subjects landlords to liability for damage or personal injury caused by the pet. For example, if the dog bit someone visiting the premises, that could be a boatload of liability for someone. As a general tort matter, owners are liable for any legally cognizable harm caused by their pets (and not all pet bites result in liability, but some do and that's all that matters for the purposes of this post). 

But one could imagine that the plaintiff might also want to sue the property owner, especially since the landlord is likely to have deeper pockets than the tenant. And if this were the case, $25/month would not come close to compensating for the possible costs associated with a tenant's pet.

Obviously there are ways to protect yourself from liability regardless of the source, like LLC status and a good umbrella insurance policy. What I'm interested in are strategies that can limit your liability in the first instance. Here are a couple I've thought about

--Have your tenant get a renters insurance policy. This doesn't actually decrease your legal exposure, but it makes a plaintiff less likely to want to sue you because they'd more likely to get a complete recovery from the tenant, so the landlord's pockets would be relatively less deep than the tenant's.

--Amend the lease. Possible amendments: tenant alone accepts all liability for any harm caused by pet; no vicious breeds allowed; tenant must get rid of pet at first indication of dangerous behavior (this one may have a downside--it makes it seem as though the landlord has ability to remove the pet, which is an inference to avoid since it increases the possibility of landlord liability generally).

--Make sure that the tenant get an animal with no history of or propensity for dangerous behavior, but do not keep a close eye on the animal's conduct after that. Choosing a non-dangerous animal just moots the risk of injury in the first instance, and then staying in the dark about the animal's conduct gives you a defense if it surprises everyone by acting viciously (landlord knowledge of any dangerous animal conduct could result in liability). 

--If you learn of any dangerous conduct by the animal, do everything possible to have the tenant get rid of the animal. The most risky thing to do would be to allow a known dangerous animal to stay on the premises with your tacit consent (probably also something to manage in the pet lease addendum).

I'd be interested in others' thoughts on this such as which of these latter strategies is best, or if any don't work, or if there are other strategies to protect yourself as a landlord from tenant pet-related liability. Thanks--