PLAINTIFF TRAMPLED BY TWO HORSES, STRICT LIABILITY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s strict liability cause of action in this injury-caused-by-a-horse action should not have been dismissed:
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained when he was trampled by defendant’s two horses, who broke free while plaintiff was assisting defendant in hitching the horses to a cart. …
“Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation’ ” … . In support of his motion, defendant submitted plaintiff’s deposition transcript, wherein plaintiff testified that, prior to plaintiff’s injury, defendant stated that “once the horses are kept inside . . . they go crazy in the winter.” Thus, defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether his horses ” had vicious propensities and, if so, whether [he] knew or should have known of those propensities’ ” … . Bavifard v Capretto, 2019 NY Slip Op 00756, Fourth Dept 2-1-19