Keeping premises safe doesn’t necessarily mean banning dogs

A recent case out of Connecticut, Madore v. ISCC, LLC, HHBCV166033741S, sits at the intersection of contract law and negligence. The plaintiff was bit by a dog at an ice skating rink operated by the defendant and sued under theories of both negligence and breach of contract. The contract theory pivoted around the defendant’s obligation in its lease to keep the premises in “good, safe, and habitable condition.” The plaintiff tried to argue that this created a duty of care toward the plaintiff to keep the premises safe for the plaintiff, which the defendant failed to do since the plaintiff was bit by a dog while on the premises. However, the court noted that the contract said nothing about dogs. The obligation to keep the premises safe did not require the defendant to ban dogs from the premises. Therefore, the provision could not be read to create a duty of care to keep the plaintiff safe from harm caused by dogs on the premises.