In a landmark decision issued on April 17, 2025, the New York State Court of Appeals broadened legal rights for individuals injured by domestic animals. The Court’s ruling in Flanders v. Goodfellow overturns the long-standing precedent that dog owners could only be held responsible if the owner knew of or should have known of prior bad behavior, or “vicious propensities.” Without proof that the owner knew or should have known of their animal’s vicious propensities, plaintiffs of dog-bite cases were often barred from being eligible for any financial recovery. With the new ruling, New York Courts now allow victims to seek recovery for their injuries from a pet owner’s negligence in their duty to prevent their animal from causing harm, even if the pet has no prior history of bad behavior, which will act to expand pet owner liability when their pets injure a person. The Old Rule: “One Free Bite” The old rule played out to more or less permit one free “bad act,” including not only bites but jumping, running wildly free, and other dangerous propensities that expose people to the dangers of an animal. No matter the behavior, under the old rule, the owner would not be held responsible unless the injured party could prove the owner was aware the dog had a history of problems. The old rule often made establishing liability a tall order for injured plaintiffs, who often have little or no information about the dog that injured them, especially before filing a lawsuit. An owner who professed their animal had never done anything dangerous before and where records did not contradict the owner often had a good defense to a claim. If an owner knew of a dog’s vicious propensities, typically a prior bite or knowledge of conduct such as lunging, snapping, or barking aggressively, the owner could be held responsible for injuries caused by the dog, even if the owner did not act negligently. For example, if the owner of “Chompy” was aware that Chompy had bitten someone before, the next time Chompy injured a person, Chompy’s owner would be held strictly liable for the injuries, regardless of the measures taken by Chompy’s owner to prevent the injury. Conversely, if Chompy’s owner did not know or did not have reason to know of past instances of Chompy causing injury, it would not matter whether Chompy’s owner was negligent or not towards the person injured. The plaintiff would be barred from recovering under a negligence claim, even if Chompy’s owners were negligent, because they were not “on notice” of Chompy’s dangerous propensities. The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Flanders v. Goodfellow recognized the unfairness of the strict liability rule to plaintiffs who may be seriously injured, but barred from recovery where they cannot prove the dog or animal’s past dangerous propensities. Understanding the New Implications for Dog Owner Liability in New York The Court overturned its own prior decisions, recognizing that the prior caselaw unfairly placed the burden of injuries on those injured while sometimes giving a free pass to negligent dog owners. The landmark decision underscores the importance of understanding the legal responsibilities associated with dog ownership. It is also an important precedent for those injured by animals due to the negligence of their owners. For those injured by an animal, typically a dog, who want to bring a claim, it becomes even more important to select an attorney familiar with animal injury/dog bite cases and how to handle them. Overview of the Case The plaintiff, Jennifer Flanders, was a postal carrier bitten by a dog owned by the defendant, Thomas Goodfellow. Flanders approached the porch of a home to make a delivery and upon opening the door, defendant’s dog went out past him, lunging toward plaintiff and biting her shoulder. She suffered a severe injury that required surgical repair. The plaintiff pursued a claim in strict liability, stating the owner knew of the dog’s “vicious propensities.” The plaintiff also made a claim for the owner’s negligence in failing to restrain the dog and permitting him to run outside. Evidence was presented that when other postal workers approached the property previously, the dog could be seen lunging at the window, growling, snarling, and biting at the glass. One postal worker described it as the most aggressive dog he had ever encountered on his route. Despite this evidence, the lower Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, saying that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the owner was home and witnessed the dog’s prior behavior. The claim that the owner was negligent in failing to restrain the dog was also dismissed as a claim not permitted in New York. The Appellate Court agreed with the trial level Court’s Decision. The Court’s Decision The Court of Appeals, the highest New York State Court, reversed the long standing rule that a dog-bite victim’s only path to recovery is through strict liability and proving that the subject animal had vicious propensities of which its owner knew or should have known. Dog owners can now be held liable for their negligence in controlling their animal to prevent injury to other persons. The Court of Appeals ruled that dog owners can be liable for injuries caused by their pets when they knowingly fail to manage their animals responsibly. The Court recognized that, “Tort law seeks to incentivize us to be mindful of the risk that our behavior might harm others by imposing a duty to act with due care … When people go about their daily lives, the law generally requires them to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.” Further, the Court held that the rule requiring proof of previous behavior lead to outcomes which were “unjust” at times. It should be for a jury to decide if the incident resulted from “dogs just being dogs” or from the negligent failure of the owner to properly supervise his pet. The ruling sets forth a clear standard for negligence; dog owners are expected to possess knowledge of their dogs’ behavior. If a dog owner fails to take reasonable precautions, the owner may be found negligent even if the dog hasn’t acted aggressively in the past. Pursuant to the Flanders ruling, a plaintiff who is injured by a domestic animal now has a choice. “If the owner knew or should have known the animal had vicious propensities, the plaintiff may seek to hold them strictly liable. Or they can rely on rules of ordinary negligence and seek to prove that the owner failed to exercise due care under the circumstances. Of course, a plaintiff might also assert both theories of liability, as Flanders, the postal carrier, chose to do. The Court emphasized the duty of dog owners to ensure their pets are safe around people, particularly in public spaces. This is an essential clarification for personal injury claimants, as it opens a new avenue for plaintiffs who may have been injured by otherwise “friendly” dogs or dogs they cannot prove had prior problems, liability will no longer depend solely on past behavior but also on the owner’s duty to manage their pet responsibly. Implications for Dog Bite Personal Injury Claims Based on the new Court precedent from Flanders, dog bite plaintiffs now have two (2) approaches to recovery under NY Law. 1) Victims of an animal-induced injury can recover damages if the owner of the animal knew or should have known that the animal had “vicious propensities;” and/or 2) Victims of an animal-induced injury can recover damages if the owner of the animal was negligent and failed to exercise due care under the circumstances that caused the injury. What’s a person injured by a dog or pet to do? With these recent and significant changes to the law, it is very important that an injured person reach out to attorneys experienced in handling animal injury and dog bite cases as soon as practicable. The attorneys at Flink Maswick Law PLLC are pleased to discuss your potential case!