The New York State Court of Appeals issued an opinion on April 17, 2025, that will significantly impact liability in cases involving harm caused by domestic animals, most commonly dogs. In Flanders v. Goodfellow,1 the Court of Appeals expanded the scope of liability in dog bite cases beyond the traditional “one free bite rule” to include common law negligence.
Under common law, as embodied by the Court of Appeals holding in Bard v. Jahnke,2 recovery against an individual who owns or harbors a domestic animal that causes injury was limited to strict liability claims where the owner knew or had reason to know of the animal’s vicious propensity. Injured plaintiffs were foreclosed from relying on a negligence theory and required to prove the animal’s proclivity to cause harm. In deciding to expand liability in Flanders, and overturn its holding in Bard, the Court of Appeals questioned: “Why should a person who is negligent in managing an automobile or a child be subject to liability, and not one who is negligent in managing a horse or bull?”
In Flanders, the plaintiff, a mail carrier, was injured after being bit by the defendants’ dog while delivering mail. The plaintiff had not been warned that the dog was dangerous, nor was there a “beware of dog” sign posted on the defendants’ property. In discovery, evidence was produced that the dog had a prior “scuffle” with another dog and that two other postal workers had regularly observed the dog acting aggressively. The defendants argued that they had no knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensity and had never received a complaint about the dog. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the defendants concluding that they had no knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensity necessary to establish strict liability and finding that the negligence cause of action was unrecognized. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed.
While the Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary judgment to the defendants on the issue of strict liability, the bulk of the court’s opinion focused on whether common law negligence should serve as a basis for liability. The unanimous court determined that notions of fairness required it to overturn Bard and recognize negligence as a basis of liability in domestic animal injury cases.
Due to the Court of Appeals holding in Flanders, cases involving injuries caused by domestic animals will now involve two avenues of liability: (1) strict liability, where the owner knew or should have known of an animal’s propensity to cause harm and (2) negligence, where the owner failed to exercise due care under the circumstances. It is no longer the rule in New York State that “every dog gets one free bite.” Instead, domestic animal owners will be held to the standards of ordinary negligence where there is no evidence of a dangerous propensity.
Barclay Damon will continue to monitor how case law involving dog bites develops following the Flanders decision.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact the author, Cory Poplawski, associate, at cpoplawski@barclaydamon.com; Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area chair, at mlarkin@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.
12025 Slip Op. 02261 (2025).
26 N.Y.3d 592 (2006).