Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search
Menu

Alert

Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

July 24, 2015

Court of Appeals Finds Owners of Domestic Animals Not Liable Under Ordinary Negligence Principles

New York's highest court recently reaffirmed New York's long-standing principle that dog owners cannot be held liable under an ordinary negligence theory. See Doerr v. Goldsmith, 2015 NY Slip Op 04752, __ N.Y.3d __ (June 9, 2015). In doing so, the Court refused to extend a 2013 holding by the Court of Appeals allowing a negligence claim to be pursued against a farmer, who allegedly allowed a cow to negligently stray from his property.

In Doerr, the plaintiff was riding on his bicycle when he collided with defendant's dog, who was running across the road to meet defendant in response to defendant's call. Plaintiff sought to hold defendant liable on theory that the defendant had negligently allowed the dog to cross in front of him, as opposed to any "vicious propensity" on the part of the dog. In October 2013, the Appellate Division, First Department, denied summary judgment to the dog owner, following the then recently-decided Court of Appeals' decision in Hastings v. Sauve, 21 N.Y.3d 122 (2013). In Hastings, the Court of Appeals permitted a negligence claim to proceed against an owner of a farm animal which had been allowed to stray from the property where it had been kept. The Appellate Division, First Department's decision was the subject of a previous legal alert available at: http://barclaydamon.com/alerts/Owners-of-Domestic-Animals-May-Be-Held-Liable-Under-Ordinary-Tort-Principles-11-21-2013.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court in Doerr declined to extend the holding in Hastings to dog owners. The Court of Appeals distinguished dogs from farm animals (those defined as "domestic animals" under Agriculture and Markets Law § 108(7)). While a plaintiff can pursue a common law negligence theory against the owner of a farm animal for allowing the animal to stray from its property, that theory is not to be extended to dog owners. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the First Department and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.


If you require further information regarding the content of this Legal Alert, please contact either of the Co-Chairs of the Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area, Thomas J. Drury, at (716) 858-3845 or tdrury@barclaydamon.com  or Matthew J. Larkin, at (315) 425-2805 or mlarkin@barclaydamon.com.

 

Subscribe

Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media

Alerts

NYS Legislature Passes Legislation to Reopen the CDPAP Fiscal Intermediary Procurement Process

Alerts

Pennsylvania State Court Grants Summary Judgment to Dental Practice Against Insurer for COVID-19 Business Interruption Coverage

Alerts

Unpacking the Impact of the Newly Effective Information Blocking Rule

Alerts

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Certifies Questions Regarding Damages for Improper Judgment Enforcement to New York Court of Appeals

Alerts

NYS Governor Cuomo Signs Bill to Fully Repeal Immunity for Certain Health Care Providers and Facilities

Alerts

Gridlock and Middleman Lobbying Cause NYS Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reforms to Fail Again in NYS Budget

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out