Batra v. Clark
Texas Court of Appeals
110 S.W.3d 126 (2003)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Dinesh Batra (defendant) owned a rental property that was leased to Martha Torres (defendant). Batra was an out-of-possession landlord because he did not live on the property. The lease agreement prohibited pets, without the written consent of Batra, and gave Batra the authority to remove any unauthorized animal from the property. However, Torres sometimes kept her son’s pit bull on the property. The dog was on the property at one point when Batra visited to fix the roof. The dog was chained up on the side of the house and barked the entire time Batra fixed the roof. Later, Clarissa Ewell, a nine-year-old girl, came to the property to play with Torres’s daughter, Georgina. The dog was behind a fence on the side of the house but was not chained. Georgina told Ewell to agitate the dog to distract it while Georgina left the house and went through a gate behind the house. Ewell ran back and forth in front of the fence, and the dog broke through the fence and attacked her. The dog bit Ewell on the leg numerous times, and Ewell required stitches. Tammy Clark (plaintiff) sued Batra and Torres on Ewell’s behalf. During the trial, Batra moved for a directed verdict, arguing that he owed no duty to Ewell. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury determined that Batra and Torres were each 50 percent at fault for Ewell’s injuries. Batra appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Taft, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
