In Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Portillo), the court held "a landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the inspection of his commercial property and to remove a dangerous condition, which includes a dog, from the premises, if he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care would have known, the dog was dangerous and usually present on the premises." ( Id. at p. 1132.) In Portillo, a man was attacked by the tenant's German shepherd dog when he delivered beer to the tenant's liquor store. The tenant's lease had been renewed about a year before the attack; the landlord made no inspection prior to renewing the lease. A sign was posted on the liquor store that read: "'Beware of Dog . . . WE HAVE A GUARD DOG!! DO NOT PET OR TEASE!'" A newspaper article posted near the door showed the dog with its paws on the counter and its mouth open as if to attack. The article described the dog as "'a furry juggernaut, replete with iron trap jaws, razor sharp fangs and a rotten disposition,' and discussed the dog's recent attack on an attempted robber." The landlord had visited the store several times and had seen the dog with the tenant's children; it did not appear vicious. Two regular visitors claimed the dog was vicious and it had attacked someone two weeks before the lease was renewed. ( Portillo, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1132.) Applying the Rowland factors ( Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108), the Portillo court ( Portillo, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 1128) found the landlord owed a duty to the injured man "to exercise reasonable care in the inspection of his commercial property and to remove or otherwise restrain the tenant's dog. It is reasonably foreseeable that a guard dog kept in a business open to the general public will injure someone; the purpose of such animals is to protect the premises and it is highly unlikely that they are docile by nature. Had appellant inspected the liquor store, he would have observed the 'Beware of Dog' sign and the newspaper article and thus learned of the dog's dangerous propensities." ( Portillo, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1135.) The court noted injuries inflicted by guard dogs are often serious. The landlord's failure to remove the dog was closely connected to the injury; moral blame attached to the landlord's failure to inspect; an inspection imposed no unreasonable burden; the risk of harm to the public outweighed the presence of a particular tenant; and insurance was available. (Ibid.)