No Question of Fact About Whether Defendant Was Strictly Liable for Actions of Dog—Bicyclist Injured When Dog Ran Into Path of Bicycle

The Third Department determined plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether a dog had a propensity to chase bicyclists or run into the path of bicyclists. Therefore, the plaintiff, a bicyclist injured when defendant’s dog (Dudley) ran into plaintiff’s path, did not raise a question of fact about whether defendant was strictly liable for the actions of defendant’s dog:

The sole viable claim against the owner of a dog that causes injury is one for strict liability … .  To establish strict liability, “there must be evidence that the animal’s owner had notice of its vicious propensities” … .  “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'” … . Indeed, “a dog’s habit of chasing vehicles or otherwise interfering with traffic could be a ‘vicious propensity'” … .  Therefore, in a case such as this, in the absence of proof that Dudley has a history of chasing bicycles or vehicles or otherwise interfering with traffic, “there is no basis for the imposition of strict liability” … .  Notably, evidence that a dog has a history of barking and running around is insufficient, by itself, to establish a vicious propensity, as such actions “are consistent with normal canine behavior” … . Buicko v Neto, 516669, 3rd Dept 12-5-13