You are here: / / THE STRICT LIABILITY THEORY APPLIES HERE WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS KICKED BY...

THE STRICT LIABILITY THEORY APPLIES HERE WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS KICKED BY DEFENDANT’S HORSE; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHICH HORSE KICKED PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S AWARENESS OF THE RISK PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in this action stemming from defendant being kicked by plaintiff’s horse. There were questions of fact about which of plaintiff’s horses kicked the plaintiff and whether plaintiff was aware of the risk of approaching the horse. Plaintiff was familiar with the horses and defendant had called plaintiff because two of the horses were fighting. The court rejected the argument that negligence, as opposed to strict liability, was the applicable theory:

Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7) classifies horses as domestic animals, and ” ‘[w]hen harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely by application of the rule’ . . . of strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal whose owner knows or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities” … (quoting Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 599 [2006] …) . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the exception to that rule set forth in Hastings v Sauve (21 NY3d 122, 125-126 [2013]) does not apply here, inasmuch as the horse did not stray from defendant’s property .. . Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, he may not maintain a negligence claim against defendant under the reasoning of Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC (35 NY3d 541 [2020]). In that case, the Court of Appeals held that the Bard rule, set forth above, does not apply to a veterinary clinic … . The Court reasoned that the Bard “line of precedent concerning animal owners [was not] directly implicated” in Hewitt … . By contrast, inasmuch as defendant was the owner of the horse that injured plaintiff, the Bard rule of strict liability applies here. Shuttleworth v Cory, 2023 NY Slip Op 06635, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Strict liability, not negligence, controls in this horse-kick case. The recent Court of Appeals applications of a negligence theory to injury caused by animals do not apply here.

 

You might also like
SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSURE DEFENDANT OF ADMISSION INTO THE SHOCK PROGRAM, DEFENDANT’S PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PRESENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE IN AN EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT’S PHYSICIAN WAS NOT WAIVED, EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE WARRANTED SANCTIONS.
ONCE PETITIONER’S PATERNITY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY GENETIC TESTING FAMILY COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO VACATE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY (AOP) PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED BY MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND (FOURTH DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A PRIOR STIPULATED ORDER OF CUSTODY AND VISITATION GRANTING PRIMARY CUSTODY TO GRANDMOTHER, THE NONPARENT (GRANDMOTHER), NOT THE FATHER, HAS THE BURDEN TO SHOW EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE DENIAL OF FATHER’S SUPERIOR RIGHT TO CUSTODY BEFORE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN CAN BE CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE TOWN BOARD’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ITS REASONS FOR ITS RULING IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEEDING AND THE BOARD’S FAILURE TO MAKE ADEQUATE FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED THE APPELLATE COURT TO REMIT THE MATTER FOR THE SECOND TIME UNDER THREAT OF SANCTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF PETITIONER’S DECOMMISSIONED ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION AND WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES ON THE NIAGARA RIVER SERVED A PUBLIC PURPOSE; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TOWN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PROPERTY AND THEN USE IT FOR EXACTLY THE SAME PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER IS NOW USING IT, I.E., ALLOWING BUSINESSES ACCESS TO INEXPENSIVE RAW WATER (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

​ ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, FILING A NOTICE... A FACTUAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD CONVICTION AND...