Today I am going to blog about a brand-new decision by the New York’s Court of Appeals (highest Court in the State) which changes New York law in favor of dog-bite victims in a big way.
First, a little history of the old rule in New York. New York’s dog bite law has always been a bit of a good-news/bad-news thing.
The good news was that if you were bit by a dog whose owner “knew of should have known” of the dog’s “vicious propensities” (usually because the dog had already bitten someone else), “strict liability” applied against the dog owner. “Strict liability” meant that you didn’t have to prove the dog owner was negligent. For example, if a dog escaped from a dog owner’s yard though no fault of the dog owner (for example, a meddling neighbor cut the fence), and the dog then bit someone, the dog owner was liable. It didn’t matter whether the owner was “negligent” or not. By choosing to continue his ownership of the dog despite the dog’s known vicious propensities, the dog owner was, as a matter of law, liable for the dog’s future attacks on humans, no matter the circumstances.
“Strict liability” (no need to prove “negligence”) was thus the good news. The bad news? Unless the dog owner knew of the dog’s vicious propensities, you could NEVER hold the dog owner liable, even if the dog owner was negligent. Example: A dog owner owns a cute little pup who never hurt a fly. But the owner is an idiot. He allows a three-year old visitor to tease the cute little pup, and to get in his face. The dog (naturally) bites the toddler’s face in self defense.
Under the old rule, the child and his parents could NOT hold the owner liable. Why not? Because the dog owner had no “knowledge of any vicious propensities”. It did not matter that the owner was negligent, even grossly negligent, for allowing a three-year old to torment his dog.
Enter the Court of Appeal’s new case, Flanders v. Goodfellow. This case brings New York in line with most other states by allowing dog-bite victims to sue under a theory of “negligence” for dog bites, even if the dog had no known vicious propensities. A plaintiff may now sue under either the old “strict liability” theory or under the new “negligence” theory.
Smart dog-bit victims’ lawyers will sue under both theories and hope to prove at least one of them. They will sue for strict liability claiming the owner knew or should have known of dangerous propensities, and at the same time will sue for negligence in that the owner failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the attack.
Pet owners beware! Flanders expands your liability. Owning a dog that has never “bitten” or “attacked” anyone, or otherwise shown “vicious propensities”, is no longer enough to guaranty you won’t be held liable. You must now take common sense measures to protect others from your dog. For example, if you accidently let your “good” dog get into the street where it causes a car accident, you can be held liable for negligence, even though your sweet little pooch never hurt or threatened anyone before.
Dog-bite victims! Don’t hesitate to call the personal injury lawyers at Michaels Bersani Kalabanka for free information about your rights.
Keep safe!
Mike Bersani
Email me at: bersani@mbk-law.com I’d love to hear from you!
Michaels Bersani Kalabanka P.C.
Syracuse NY Personal Injury Lawyers
315-253-3293