In cases arising from injuries caused by dogs and other domestic pets, New York follows a rule that is currently more restrictive than many other jurisdictions. In New York, if the animal had prior, known” vicious propensities,” an injured plaintiff may recover from its owner for damages. But, with limited exceptions, if the animal did not have such propensities, the plaintiff cannot prevail against its owner on a theory of general negligence.
In a recent case, Hewitt v. Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC, _ N.Y.3d _, 2020 WL 6163313 (2020), the Court of Appeals considered the extent to which it is necessary to show that an animal had vicious propensities to recover from a property owner—there, a veterinary clinic—that did not own the animal. The case produced two dueling opinions, which revealed sharp differences in approach among the judges and portends significant future divisions on the Court in animal liability cases.
‘Bard’ Strict Liability Rule for Actions Against Animal Owners
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]