May, J.
Brooke Brown (“Brooke”), by her next friend Mark Brown (“Brown”), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Southside Animal Shelter, Inc. (“Southside”). Brown presents multiple issues for our review, one of which we find dispositive: Whether Southside had a duty to inform the Browns of a dog’s vicious characteristics so far as they were known or ascertainable by exercise of reasonable care. We reverse and remand.
….
Here, the dispositive issue is whether Southside owed a duty to the Browns and thus could have been liable for the injuries Brooke sustained when bitten by Grieg. The parties agree that it is well-established that the owner or keeper of an animal is liable when that animal injures someone. See, e.g., Ross v. Lowe, 619 N.E.2d 911, 914 (Ind. 1993) (“An owner or keeper who fails to exercise . . . reasonable care may be liable in negligence for the manner of keeping and controlling the dog.”). The Browns also point to Baker v. Weather ex rel. Weather, 714 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), in which we held a landlord may be liable for the actions of an animal if the landlord owns or controls the property and has actual knowledge of the animal’s dangerous tendencies. Id. at 741-2. Finally, the Browns direct us to Indiana Model Civil Jury Instruction 1955, entitled, “Domestic Animals – Known to be Dangerous,” which provides:
A [person][entity] who knows or by reasonable care should have known that a domestic animal [he][she][it] [owns][has charge of] is vicious or dangerous to [people][other animals][property] must use reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage.
The comments to the Civil Jury Instruction include reference to Artificial Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Martin, 102 Ind. App. 74, 198 N.E. 446 (1935), which we find instructive here.
….
…This standard, now almost a century old, is still law. Thus, we hold Southside, as the owner and/or keeper of Grieg, had a duty to inform the Browns of Grieg’s “vicious characteristics” so far as Southside knew, or to the extent such knowledge was ascertainable by the exercise of reasonable care.
The parties disagree as to whether Southside knew, or should have known by exercise of reasonable care, of Grieg’s past aggressions. For example, Southside contends Kurtz was not an employee or volunteer at the time of Grieg’s arrival at Southside, and thus any information CCHS gave Kurtz could not be considered information given to Southside by virtue of Kurtz as Southside’s agent. The Browns maintain Kurtz was a volunteer at Southside at the time relevant to this action. Further, there also remains a question of fact regarding whether Southside exercised reasonable care in ascertaining Grieg’s behavioral history prior to allowing the Browns to adopt him. As we have determined Southside had a duty to Brown, significant issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in this action. [Footnote omitted.]
Conclusion
Because Southside had a duty to inform the Browns of Grieg’s past bite history, and because there are issues of material fact regarding whether Southside breached that duty or proximately caused Brooks’ injuries, the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Southside. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.