What is the legal test for determining whether a landlord is liable for a nuisance caused by a tenant's dog?

The second step involves a landlord's ability to prevent the foreseeable harm. In Uccello the court relied on Dennis v. City of Orange (1930) 110 [34 Cal.App.4th 1839] Cal.App. 16, 293 P. 865 to establish the principle the landlord's duty derives from his control and ability to prevent dangerous conditions on his property. In Dennis, a landlord was held liable for a nuisance created by a tenant's gravel excavation. The court stated, "[t]he ground of the defendant's liability for the nuisance is that it existed at a time when he had the opportunity or power to abate or remove it and failed to do so. (Id. at p. 24 [293 P. 865].)" Thus, the injuries the dogs cause must be ones which would not have occurred if the landlord had taken actions which were within his power. In the cases of dangerous dogs, that potential power is found in whatever rights the landlord may have to insist the tenant remove the dogs from the leased premises or to insure the property is so secure the dogs cannot escape to harm persons on or off the property. (See discussion at pages 201-202, post.)