In an earlier published article on this subject, The ‘Vicious Propensities’ Rule and Property Owner Liability, NYLJ (May 8, 2019), which I co-authored with Matthew J. Kaiser, we provided a detailed analysis of the then-recent appellate case Hewitt v. Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC, 167 A.D.3d 1120 (3d Dept. 2018). That decision stirred a great deal of interest in this area of personal injury law because it effectively held that a landowner could be absolved from its nondelegable duty of care if the instrumentality of harm was the domestic animal owned by another.

Based on the sole dissent, we posited the query as to whether liability should attach to such property owner on a theory of negligence for not exercising proper care to a third party on the property, notwithstanding the issue of vicious propensities.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

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]