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
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.
A STACK OF DRYWALL LEANING AGAINST A WALL AND PARTIALLY BLOCKING A DOORWAY FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE AS PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOVE IT; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUDDLE ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ENGAGING IN COUNSELING SHOULD NOT BE A CONDITION OF VISITATION; THE COURT SHOULD NOT DELEGATE ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IF AND WHEN VISITATION SHOULD OCCUR TO A COUNSELOR (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Hospital Does Not Have a Duty to Prevent a Patient from Leaving the Hospital Against Medical Advice or to Ensure Patient’s Safe Return Home
THE CELL PHONE RECORDS OF PLAINTIFF-DRIVER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL POSSIBLE USES OF THE CELL PHONE WHICH ARE NOT REVEALED BY THE RECORDS; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE CELL PHONE TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS USING IT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DENYING THAT HE SOLD COCAINE AND DESCRIBING THE PROCEEDINGS AS CORRUPT WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSURE DEFENDANT OF ADMISSION INTO THE SHOCK PROGRAM, DEFENDANT’S PLEA VACATED (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...