In Donchin v. Guerrero (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1832, the victim of a dog attack sued a landlord for permitting his tenant to keep vicious dogs on the premises. (Id. at p. 1835.) Although the landlord initially denied knowing that his tenant had dogs, he later admitted that he was aware of the dogs, but stated in a sworn declaration that he lacked any knowledge of their violent propensities. (Ibid.) The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the landlord. (Id. at 1837.) On appeal, the Court reversed the summary judgment on the grounds that a jury reasonably could infer from the landlord's earlier false exculpatory statement denying any knowledge of the dogs' existence that his later statement denying any knowledge of their violent propensities was likewise false. (Id. at pp. 1840-1843.) The Court concluded that because the plaintiff had demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether the landlord had knowledge of the dogs' dangerous propensities, summary judgment was improper. (Id. at p. 1845.) In short, a summary judgment for the landlord was reversed because there was a triable issue of fact whether the landlord knew of the dog's dangerous propensities. Actual knowledge was required to impose a duty of care. "Without knowledge of a dog's propensities a landlord will not be able to foresee the animal poses a danger and thus will not have a duty to take measures to prevent the attack." ( Id. at p. 1838.) The actual knowledge rule "can be satisfied by circumstantial evidence the landlord must have known about the dog's dangerousness as well as direct evidence he actually knew. (Ibid).