For the last 20 years, the owners and caretakers of dogs in New York were only held responsible under a theory of “strict liability.”  If the owner or caretaker had prior notice that the dog had a propensity to viciousness (e.g., a prior attack / dog bite of another person) before it attacked you, they were 100% responsible for the injuries that dog caused.  On the other hand, if the owner / caretaker did not have prior notice of the dog’s vicious propensities, they had 0% responsibility to the injured person.  In 2025, the Court of Appeals expanded dog bite cases beyond claims of strict liability, and now permit “negligence” claims.

Negligence

On April 17, 2025, the Court of Appeals changed the rule in New York and decided that dog bite cases should also be permitted, like car accidents and slip and falls, to be able to claim negligence in addition to a theory of strict liability.  Flanders v. Goodfellow, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 02261 (Apr. 17, 2025).  Under a negligence claim, the dog owner or caretaker is responsible to the extent that he or she was negligent.  For instance, if a dog owner throws a frisbee and the dog, in an attempt to catch the frisbee, runs into a child causing injuries to the child, the dog owner may be held at fault for those injuries, even if the dog owner did not have any notice of the dog’s prior vicious propensity.

In another example, a woman is walking in a park and another person is walking in the park with their dog without a leash.  The dog runs past its owner and attacks the woman, biting her.  The unleashed dog owner claims they do not have any prior notice of the dog’s tendency to be vicious.  Under a negligence claim, the dog owner may still be at fault for failing to restrain his dog on a leash.

The Court of Appeals’ decision to permit negligence claims in dog bite cases allows for substantial fairness in holding owners of pets responsible for their share in failing to act reasonably under the circumstances.

Strict Liability

Dog bites and animal attacks in New York State are governed by long established and rigidly enforced rules regarding liability for damages and responsibility. Upon proof of prior notice and vicious propensities, the owner is then absolutely liable.  Two things must be proven by the victim, however, before the Courts will order any monetary compensation or the homeowners’ insurance will pay damages.

First, it must be established that the dog or other domestic animal had “vicious propensities.” In basic terms, that means that the animal had on a prior occasion either bitten or attacked someone or, perhaps, another animal.  There are many ways that vicious propensities can be demonstrated.  Obviously, a prior bite or attack is the most direct.  It might be that the animal aggressively strained at the leash and barked, bared its teeth, or snapped at visitors.  Lagoda v. Dorr, 28 A.D.2d 208 (3d Dept. 1967).   It might be that the dog would, on prior occasions, charge the fence or even the front door.  It has been argued that the viciousness of the attack, in and of itself, may be evidence of vicious propensities.  Often, veterinary records will contain entries that the animal was uncontrollable and provide specific instances of uncontrolled behavior.

Secondly, it must be established that the owner or one who harbors the animal had prior notice and should have known of these vicious propensities before the attack in question. Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 (2004). A landlord may be liable if a tenant harbors an animal with vicious propensities, he knows of the tendency, and he has the ability to protect others from attack.  Strunk v. Zoltanski, 62 N.Y.2d 572 (1984).   However, if a dog had bitten a neighbor down the street but that incident was never reported to the owner or the authorities, then any claim of strict liability would fail because the owner did not have prior notice.  The owner does not need to have prior notice of the exact type of attack at issue, only that the animal demonstrated previously vicious propensities.

This applies to all instances in New York of attacks by domestic animals. The Courts do not recognize that any particular type of animal or breed is inherently vicious.  DeVaul v. Carvigo, Inc., 138 A.D.2d 669 (2d Dept. 1988) (German Shepherd); Bohm v. Nystrum Constr., 208 A.D.2d 668 (2d Dept. 1994) (Akita).  That issue and the prior notice must be proven in each case.  What constitutes a domestic animal is defined in the Agriculture and Markets Law § 108.   It includes “domesticated sheep, horse, cattle, goat, swine, fowl, duck….”   One can argue that bulls, by definition, are aggressive and even vicious.  The Courts consistently held that they are domestic animals and are governed by the prior notice of vicious propensities standard that has been long established. Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006); Agriculture and Markets Law § 108(7).

Though it rarely arises, attacks by “wild animals” are held to a different standard.  In that instance, if it can be shown that the species generally is regarded to have vicious propensities, the owner of the animal will be absolutely liable for injuries and damages even without any prior notice.  Stevens v. Hulse, 263 N.Y. 421 (1934). The Court is empowered to take Judicial Notice of the wild nature of a wild animal.  Carelli v. Sterling-Alaska Fur & Game Farms, Inc., 25 Misc. 2d 1032 (Queens Cnty., Aug. 8, 1960).  Sometimes, additional proof is required.  For example, we all have the image of Bambi when thinking about deer.  However, deer are clearly wild animals as opposed to domestic.  What needs to be established in a deer attack case is that the animal generally has vicious propensities.  The attorney may need to retain a forestry expert to offer proof that, for example, male deer during rut are vicious, aggressive, and certainly not domestic.

This post is intended to provide legal information, not legal advice.  If you want to know how the facts of your specific case may be applied under the law, contact the Law Office of J. Michael Hayes today for a free consultation.