Recent Changes to Personal Injury Law and the Rights of Recovery for Injuries Caused by Domestic Animals

Since the early 1800s, in cases where someone is bitten by a domestic animal, an owner who had actual or constructive knowledge of the animal’s “vicious propensities,” such as the animal biting or attacking someone, or other evidence the animal is vicious, would be held strictly liable for the injuries caused by the animal. Benoit v. Troy & L.R. Co., 154 N.Y. 223(1897); Vrooman v. Law.,1816 WL 1211(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1816).

This rule has had several specific exceptions made, but no substantial changes, over the years. For example, if the animal is unlawfully in or on someone else’s property, then you do not need to prove vicious propensity. Van Leuven v. Lyke,1 N.Y. 515, 515(1848). In a case in 1920, Hosmer v. Carney, 228 N.Y. 73 (Ct. App. 1920), where an owner was kicked by a horse that had been bought several months prior, the seller of the horse was not liable for the injuries suffered despite the horse being a vicious kicker, because the prior kicking incidents all occurred during situations of stress to the horse, such as reshoeing and clipping. Hastings v. Sauve, 21 N.Y 3d 122(2013) established another exception for the strict liability rule, holding that a landowner or animal owner may be held liable under ordinary tort law principals of negligence if their farm animal negligently leaves their property.

In Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592(2006), where a carpenter was charged by a bull on a dairy farm and suffered severe personal injuries as a result, the court held the farm was not liable for these injuries because they were not aware of the bull having vicious or violent propensities. Just because a domestic animal is a specific breed that may be known to be more aggressive than others, absent a prior incident or behaviors, the court will not hold an owner liable. The cause of action for negligence in this case was also dismissed, and determined not applicable in these types of cases.

Most recently however, in Flander v. Goodfellow, 2025 WL 1127772(2025), a postal worker was bitten by a dog, and the lower courts determined there was no actual or constructive knowledge of vicious propensities. While the Court of Appeals did feel there was a question of fact over whether the owner of the dog was aware of certain behaviors and reinstated the strict liability cause of action, the Court of Appeals also reinstated the negligence cause of action. The court determined that it was time to “set aside Bard’s rule”-and the overall rule of the courts before it for so many years- that an owner of a domestic animal may not be held liable in negligence for harms cause by their animal. As a result of this decision, actions regarding injuries caused by animals can be brought with both strict liability and/or negligence theories of liability. This is a monumental change to personal injury law and expands upon the right of recovery for plaintiffs that suffer injuries from a domestic animal.

Giulia R. Marino, Esq.