The Kentucky Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision in a case involving a dog bite incident that left the plaintiff, Brittany Hoak, with serious injuries. The court affirmed the summary judgment granted to Left Back Properties, LLC, the landlord of the property where the incident occurred. This ruling impacts how landlords might be held liable in similar dog bite cases.

On November 6, 2026, the Court of Appeals ruled on the case, which originated from an incident on November 7, 2023, when Hoak was bitten by a pit bull terrier while on the premises leased by Left Back Properties. The court's decision clarifies the responsibilities of landlords regarding dog ownership and liability.

Background

Brittany Hoak was a tenant living at a property leased by Left Back Properties to Fermin Alvarado. On the day of the incident, Hoak entered the backyard of the property and was attacked by a pit bull that lived in the garage. The dog caused significant injuries, including a fractured jaw that required emergency surgery.

Following the attack, Hoak filed a civil lawsuit on January 17, 2024, against Sixto Alvarado, Jennifer Mitchell, and Left Back Properties. Although Alvarado and Mitchell were not served with the lawsuit, Hoak claimed that the defendants were liable for her injuries under theories of strict liability and common law negligence.

Initially, the Jefferson Circuit Court denied a motion to dismiss the claims against Left Back Properties, allowing Hoak to conduct further discovery. However, after filing a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2025, Left Back Properties argued that it could not be held liable since it did not know about the dog or its dangerous tendencies.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Combs, ultimately upheld the lower court's summary judgment in favor of Left Back Properties. The court noted that Hoak failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims against the landlord.

“Despite being given the opportunity to conduct discovery... [Hoak] has submitted no affirmative evidence which supports her claims that Left Back is statutorily liable for the alleged dog attack,” the court stated.

The court explained that under Kentucky law, a landlord can only be held liable for a dog attack if they both own and occupy the premises where the dog resides. The court found that Left Back Properties did not meet this definition, as it did not occupy the property.

Furthermore, the court addressed Hoak's argument regarding common law negligence, emphasizing that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant had prior knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. The court found no evidence indicating that Left Back Properties was aware of the dog's presence or its potential for aggression.

Impact

This ruling is significant for landlords in Kentucky and could influence future cases involving dog bites and landlord liability. The court's decision clarifies that landlords are not automatically responsible for injuries caused by dogs owned by tenants unless they have both owned and occupied the premises.

The ruling also underscores the importance of evidence in negligence claims. Landlords may feel more secure knowing that they are not liable for tenant-owned pets unless they have direct knowledge of a dog's dangerous behavior. This case sets a precedent that may limit the liability of landlords in similar situations.

What's Next

Hoak has the option to appeal the ruling to the Kentucky Supreme Court, although it is unclear whether she will pursue this route. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to this decision.