How liable is landlord for dog bites?

I would not think that the landlord would be liable at all if the tenant is violating the lease in two ways: no renter’s insurance and having a pet.

That’s what I think too. Jane is no relation to the tenant or the landlord. I’m not even sure how she found out who the tenant’s landlord was, or why she’s even involving him.

If the landlord knew about the violation of the no-pets clause and took no action, then there’s a weak flank for a competent attorney to attack.

If it comes out during any discovery that the plaintiff acquires evidence that the landlord knew of the violation, say an email or letter from the landlord stating certain knowledge, then it may be up to the landlord to demonstrate that he had taken action to rectify that.

Edited to add:
However, since the attack took place away from the landlord’s property, I don’t see what bearing the landlord-tenant relationship has on this at all. I would think that the judge, hearing that fact, would excuse the landlord from the suit. What bearing does he have on any of this?

Not so much, I would think. Whoever got bit by the dog would have no real recourse except to pursue dog owner for compensation.
Other than that, the VERY best the person who got bit could hope for would be the tenant being evicted for having a unallowed dog, along with a citation from the police for having a dangerous animal roaming at large.
But it doesn’t matter to the case of who got bit by whose dog whether the dog owner’s landlord allowed pets or not, so that might have no bearing on the case at all. Frivolous!

Basically, they are looking for the deep pockets, someone with insurance whose company may settle with the plaintiff. It doesn’t seem like the landlord would be liable at all but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility entirely.

It sounds to me like the landlord didn’t do their job by not insisting the dog owner was insured. This, I think, opens them to a suit. But the fact that it happened off property might be a significant circumstance open to mitigation in the landlord’s favor.

Considering the fact that the only relationship between the three people (and the dog) is that the two tenants involved in the incident live in the place owned or managed by the landlord. But the incident didn’t take place on any of the “common” property, that is, not on the landlord’s property.

So another way of looking at this – and to help to demonstrate to the court the absurdity of the suit against him – might be for the landlord to suggest to the judge that if Jane and the tenant work for the same employer, for example, or if they happen to shop at the same supermarket, then why not make those owners and managers a party to the suit, too? Hey, they can obviously sue the mayor and chief of police of the place where the attack occurred. Why not the Governor of the state while they’re at it? And Donald Trump, of course, but that goes without saying.