The Expansion of Dog Owner Liability in New York

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A landmark ruling by the New York Court of Appeals significantly alters the legal landscape in cases involving animal attacks, opening the door to expanded liability for insurers and property owners and more complex litigation for defense counsel.

• Prior to the high court’s April 17 decision, a dog owner could only be held strictly liable for injuries caused by their animal if the plaintiff could prove that the owner knew, or should have known, of the dog’s “vicious propensities.”

• Now, plaintiffs may pursue claims under a negligence theory, asserting a dog owner failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm. With the decision broadening the scope of liability, an uptick in claims and lawsuits is likely.

In a landmark decision likely to have wide-ranging implications for premises liability claims and insurance defense litigation, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has upended decades of precedent in its recent April 17 ruling in Flanders v. Goodfellow.

Following this decision, New York courts will recognize a cause of action in ordinary negligence against dog owners whose animals cause injury, in addition to the traditional strict liability standard previously available. The ruling significantly alters the legal landscape for insurers, property owners, and defense counsel, opening the door to expanded liability and more complex litigation in cases involving animal attacks.

The Pre-Flanders Legal Framework

Prior to Flanders, New York adhered to a rigid doctrine when it came to injuries caused by domestic animals, particularly dogs. Under the longstanding rule established in Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006), a dog owner could only be held strictly liable for injuries caused by their animal if the plaintiff could prove that the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s “vicious propensities.”

A vicious or dangerous propensity means a natural inclination or habitual tendency to act in a manner that might endanger the person or property of others. Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm.

This strict liability standard meant that even clear evidence of an owner’s negligence —such as leaving a gate open or failing to leash an aggressive dog — was not actionable unless the dog was previously known to exhibit dangerous behavior. Consequently, many plaintiffs were left without recourse, and insurers enjoyed a narrow defense strategy focused solely on the evidentiary burden of demonstrating prior knowledge of the animal’s aggression.

The Facts of Flanders v. Goodfellow

In Flanders v. Goodfellow, the plaintiff was a delivery worker who entered the defendant’s property to deliver a package. As he approached the front door, he was attacked and seriously injured by the defendant’s dog, a large breed with no documented history of aggression. The dog was not restrained, and there was no visible signage warning of its presence.

The plaintiff brought claims under both strict liability and negligence. The trial court dismissed the negligence claim, citing the Bard precedent. However, the Appellate Division reversed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the reversal, recognizing for the first time a separate cause of action in negligence under these circumstances.

The Court’s Reasoning

In its majority opinion, the court reasoned that the rigid rule in Bard was overly restrictive and inconsistent with broader principles of tort law. The court acknowledged the reality that a dog can cause serious injury even in the absence of a known propensity for violence, and that owners should be held to a reasonable standard of care in restraining and managing their animals.

The court emphasized that the strict liability rule remains viable and available to plaintiffs, but it is no longer the exclusive avenue for recovery. Now, plaintiffs may also pursue claims under a negligence theory, asserting that the dog owner failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm. This includes situations where the dog is left unrestrained in areas accessible to the public, where inadequate fencing or barriers exist, or where warning signs are absent.

Implications for Insurers and Defense Counsel

The Flanders decision significantly broadens the scope of liability and will likely lead to an uptick in claims and lawsuits against dog owners. For insurers and defense counsel, this expansion introduces several critical considerations:

1. Increased Exposure: Insurers may face a higher volume of claims and greater exposure to damages, particularly in cases where the strict liability threshold could not previously be met. Now, even a well-behaved dog can be the basis for a claim if reasonable precautions were arguably lacking.
2. Dual Theories of Liability: Plaintiffs may now simultaneously allege strict liability and negligence, requiring defense attorneys to craft more nuanced strategies that address both doctrines. The bifurcation of theories could also complicate discovery and trial proceedings, as separate evidentiary burdens will apply.
3. Policy Revisions: Insurers may need to reevaluate underwriting standards, policy language, and exclusions related to dog ownership. Particular attention could be paid to breed restrictions, property access control, and prior incident reporting.
4. Premises Liability Intersection: The decision also affects broader premises liability principles, especially in residential and commercial settings where third parties may enter the premises. Landlords, tenants, and business owners may all be implicated under a negligence theory if they fail to implement or enforce reasonable safety measures related to dogs on their property.
5. Litigation Strategy: Defense attorneys must now thoroughly investigate the circumstances of each incident to assess not only the animal’s history but also the precautions taken by the owner. Risk assessments and comparative fault analyses will become more prominent in defense strategy.

Challenges and Open Questions

While the Flanders decision is groundbreaking, it leaves several important questions unanswered:

• Scope of Negligence: How broadly will courts interpret what constitutes “reasonable precautions”?
• Shared Liability: How will comparative negligence principles apply when the injured party may have provoked the animal or ignored posted warnings?
• Third-Party Claims: What liability, if any, will attach to landlords or property managers who permit tenants to own dogs?

These questions will likely be the subject of future litigation and judicial clarification.

Best Practices for Defense Counsel and Insurers

In the wake of Flanders, proactive measures can mitigate risk and prepare for effective defense:

• Thorough Investigations: Collect detailed information about the dog’s behavior, training, and environment, as well as the owner’s history of pet management.
• Documentation and Evidence: Ensure owners document safety measures, such as leashes, gates, warning signs, and behavioral training.
• Risk Assessments: Encourage insureds to conduct regular risk assessments regarding animal safety on their premises.
• Educate Clients: Inform dog owners, landlords, and commercial clients about their potential exposure and the importance of implementing reasonable safeguards.

Conclusion

The Flanders v. Goodfellow decision marks a pivotal shift in New York tort law, bringing the state more in line with jurisdictions that allow for negligence-based claims in dog bite cases. This ruling necessitates a reevaluation of litigation strategies, client counseling, and claims management practices.

While the decision provides greater opportunities for plaintiffs, it also underscores the importance of vigilance, documentation, and proactive defense planning. By adapting quickly and thoughtfully, insurers and their counsel can navigate this expanded liability landscape while continuing to protect the interests of their clients.

Stay tuned for further developments as courts begin to interpret and apply this new dual-framework for dog owner liability across New York State.