a known dangerous condition upon the property and that the defendants retained control over the presence of the pit bull within the leased premises through the “no pets” clause in the lease. Thus, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants had a duty of care to protect Matthews and her son from that extremely dangerous animal. Under our cases, whether a landlord owes a duty to his or her tenants and their guests with respect to dangerous or defective conditions on the property, of which the landlord has notice -82, 227 A.2d 226, 230-231 (1967) (landlord liable for injuries to a social guest where the landlord had knowledge of a dangerous condition but failed to take preventative steps to ensure a child’s safety); Langley Park Apartments v. Lund, 234 Md. 402, 410, 199 A.2d 620, 624 (1964) (<HOLDING>); Sezzin v. Stark, 187 Md. 241, 248, 49 A.2d
holding a landlord liable for injuries sustained in the laundry room of an apartment complex holding that the owner of property who retained an independent contractor did not owe any nondelegable duty of care to the plaintiff who had slipped and fallen on the adjoining sidewalk holding proprietor of a tavern was not liable to officer who sustained injuries caused by a patron while the officer was attempting to make an arrest holding that an owner or occupant of properly is not liable to pedestrians for injuries resulting from a fall caused by the natural accumulation of snow and ice on a sidewalk in front of the property  holding a landlord liable for injuries sustained by a tenant who slipped on an icy sidewalk