For the first time since 1929 the Court of Appeals has explicitly allowed a lawsuit, arising out of an injury caused by an animal, to proceed on a negligence theory. Previously, the court moved toward requiring that victims of injuries caused by animals prove that the animal had shown a prior vicious propensity, until eventually requiring victims to rely solely on proving a prior viciousness. That rule however, proved unworkable, and was criticized in a number of Appellate Division rulings. Now, in Hastings v. Sauve, —N.Y.3d— (May 2, 2013), the court has moderated its previous position by holding that an owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort law principles in certain situations.
Vicious Propensity Rule
The court's recent rigidity to the vicious propensity rule can be traced back to the case of Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 (2004). In Collier, a child was bitten by a dog. In dismissing the case, the court held: "For at least 188 years, the law of this state has been that the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal's vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those 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This content has been archived.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
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]
