The Old Law: Liability Based on the Owner’s Prior Knowledge of Vicious Propensities
Under New York’s longstanding rule, dog owners could only be held strictly liable for injuries caused by their pets if a victim established that:
- The dog had prior vicious propensities.
- The owner knew or should have known about these propensities.
This approach was reaffirmed in cases like Collier v. Zambito, 807 N.E.2d 254 (2004), where the Court of Appeals emphasized that liability hinges on the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s dangerous tendencies.
Consequently, even if an owner failed to exercise reasonable care, they would not be held liable unless they had prior knowledge of the dog’s aggression and vicious propensities.
A New Precedent: Flanders v. Goodfellow, N.Y. Slip Op. 02261 (2025)
The case of Flanders v. Goodfellow, decided on April 17, 2025, marks a pivotal moment in New York’s dog bite jurisprudence. In this case, the plaintiff, a delivery person, was bitten by the defendants’ dog after it escaped from their house. The plaintiff pursued claims based on both strict liability and negligence.
The Court of Appeals upheld the strict liability claim but, for the first time, acknowledged the viability of a negligence claim.
The High Court recognized that if a dog owner fails to exercise reasonable care in controlling their pet, and this failure leads to injury, they can be held liable under a negligence theory. With this ruling, New York joins the majority of other states with similar legal standards.
Implications of the Shift: Expanded Liabilities for Dog Owners
This development aligns New York more closely with the broader national trend, where negligence plays a central role in personal injury cases involving animals. It acknowledges that owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care in managing their pets, regardless of the animals’ prior behavior.
For dog attack victims, this means that even in the absence of documented aggressive behavior by a dog, they may still have recourse if they can demonstrate that the owner’s negligence contributed to the incident. For dog owners, it underscores the importance of maintaining control over their animals and taking proactive measures to prevent potential harm.
Conclusion
The Flanders v. Goodfellow decision signifies a meaningful shift in New York’s approach to dog bite cases, opening the door for negligence claims alongside traditional strict liability. This shift reflects a common-sense understanding of owner responsibility and provides a broader avenue for animal attack victims seeking compensation.