Animal Law – Page 7 – New York Appellate Digest

EVEN THOUGH THE DOG HAD NEVER BITTEN ANYONE BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this dog bite case. The proof did not demonstrate defendant was unaware of the dog’s vicious propensities. Defendant’s motion should have been dismissed without reference to the opposing papers:

On his motion, along with his deposition testimony, defendant submitted the deposition testimony of his girlfriend and that of plaintiff. However, rather than showing that he was entitled to summary judgment, the deposition testimony showed just the opposite. Defendant testified that the dog was chained outside in order to alert him to the presence of people in his yard and to protect business assets on his property. He testified that the dog is “there to bark” and that barking and running to the full extent of its chain when people enter the property is the dog’s “job.” Defendant described an incident three to five years prior to the instant bite in which the dog grabbed a customer’s pant leg, though defendant claimed that the dog did not break any skin. We note that, even if the dog had not broken the person’s skin, such aggressive behavior may reflect a proclivity to act in such a way that puts others at risk of harm and can be found to be evidence of a vicious propensity … . * * *

“Knowledge of vicious propensities may . . . be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the [defendant] had notice . . . even in the absence of proof that the dog had actually bitten someone — by evidence that it had been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth” … . The evidence submitted by defendant shows that he kept a guard dog on a chain so that it could not bite people, it had previously broken its chain to get to, and then circle, a person who came on defendant’s property, it had grabbed hold of another person’s pant leg and children had been warned to stay away from the dog. All these factors reflect a proclivity for the dog to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm and that defendant knew, or should have known, of the dog’s vicious propensity … . Olsen v Campbell, 2017 NY Slip Op 03828, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, EVEN THOUGH THE DOG HAD NEVER BITTEN ANYONE BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)/DOG BITE (DOG BITE, EVEN THOUGH THE DOG HAD NEVER BITTEN ANYONE BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)

May 11, 2017

Animal Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence

HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department, in affirming summary judgment for defendant in this dog bite case, noted that hearsay, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Defendant (Nicole) demonstrated she had no knowledge the dog had vicious propensities. In response, plaintiff presented only hearsay:

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through Nicole’s deposition testimony, that she was not aware, nor should she have been aware, that the dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior … . Nicole testified that she had purchased the dog when it was two months old, the dog had undergone obedience training, and the dog had never attacked or bitten anyone before the incident at issue.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The only evidence offered by the plaintiff to demonstrate that, prior to this incident, the dog had exhibited fierce or hostile tendencies was hearsay, which is insufficient, on its own, to bar summary judgment … . Ciliotta v Ranieri, 2017 NY Slip Op 03150, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/DOG BITE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)

April 26, 2017

Animal Law, Negligence

ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS THIS DOG INJURY CASE SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT FORCEFULLY ARGUED THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT.

The First Department, in a substantial opinion by Justice Acosta, reluctantly affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the dog-injury complaint. Defendant tied his 35 pound dog to an unsecured bicycle rack which weighed five pounds. The dog ran off, dragging the rack. Plaintiff’s leg became tangled in the rack, causing him to fall. The First Department followed the Court of Appeals precedent, which allows a dog-injury suit only on vicious propensity/strict liability grounds. The opinion strongly argued the law should be changed to allow dog-injury suits based upon negligence:

Were we not … constrained … we would … permit plaintiffs to pursue their negligence cause of action. To avoid the harshness of the [Court of Appeals] rule, the recognition of the following exception would be appropriate: A dog owner who attaches his or her dog to an unsecured, dangerous object, allowing the dog to drag the object through the streets and cause injury to others, may be held liable in negligence. In these circumstances, negligence liability would be in keeping with the principles of fundamental fairness, responsibility for one’s actions, and societal expectations … — assuming a jury would deem unreasonable defendant’s failure to ensure that the rack was secured before he tied his dog to it. It is not unreasonable to expect dog owners to restrain their dogs in public unless unleashing them is safe or specifically permitted at certain times and locations, as evidenced by local leash laws (see e.g. 24 RCNY 161.05). However, the Court of Appeals has decided that local leash laws have no bearing on whether liability in negligence ought to attach … , undermining the declared public policy of those localities that have enacted such laws … And although the [Court of Appeals] reasoned that New Yorkers may expect to find unrestrained dogs in public parks … , New Yorkers certainly do not expect to find those dogs running on public roads towing large metal objects behind them. A dog owner who, without observing a reasonable standard of care, attaches his or her dog to an object that could foreseeably become weaponized if the dog is able to drag the object through public areas should not be immune from liability when that conduct causes injury. Scavetta v Wechsler, 2017 NY Slip Op 01985, 1st Dept 3-16-17

ANIMAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS THIS DOG INJURY CASE SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT FORCEFULLY ARGUED THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT)/DOGS (ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS THIS DOG INJURY CASE SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT FORCEFULLY ARGUED THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT)/NEGLIGENCE (DOGS, ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS THIS DOG INJURY CASE SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT FORCEFULLY ARGUED THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT)

March 16, 2017

Animal Law, Landlord-Tenant

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this dog-bite case, determined there was a question of fact whether the landlord’s (Fowler LLC’s) agents knew of the vicious propensities of a dog on the premises:

“To recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog on a theory of strict liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord: (1) had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises; (2) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities, and (3) had sufficient control of the premises to allow the landlord to remove or confine the dog” … . “Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others” … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … .

Fowler met its prima facie burden for judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was not aware, nor should it have been aware, that the dog had any vicious propensities … . However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether nonparties John Martel and Carlos Ortez were Fowler’s agents such that their knowledge of the dog’s alleged vicious propensities could be imputed to Fowler … . Kraycer v Fowler St., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01345, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

ANIMAL LAW (DOG-BITE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DOG-BITE (LANDLORD, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/LANDLORD-TENANT (DOG-BITE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/AGENCY (DOG-BITE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

February 22, 2017

Animal Law, Municipal Law

COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NO EVIDENCE SHELTER PERSONNEL WERE AWARE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE THE DOG HAD BITTEN SOMEONE ELSE NOT IMPUTED TO SHELTER PERSONNEL; NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case should have been granted. Plaintiff was a volunteer who walked dogs held at the county animal shelter. She was bitten by one of the dogs. There was no showing the shelter personnel were aware of the dog’s vicious propensities. The fact that the health department was aware the dog had bitten someone else in a prior incident was not imputed to the shelter personnel. The Fourth Department also held Supreme Court should not have denied the county’s motion to dismiss the negligence cause of action. Negligence does not lie in dog bite cases:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the fact that shelter personnel may have been informed at the time of the dog’s surrender that the dog had previously knocked over a child is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the dog’s vicious propensities to bite. Although a tendency to knock a person over may reflect “a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” (Collier, 1 NY3d at 447), plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the dog’s knocking her over, and the dog’s proclivity to do so, even if established, did not “result[] in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit”… .

We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, any knowledge of that incident obtained by … [the] Health Department should not be imputed to the County or the shelter … . “A municipality often will have numerous employees assigned to separate and diverse agencies or departments” … , and the record demonstrates that there is no overlap in the respective scopes of authority of the Health Department and the shelter.

We further conclude that the court erred in denying the County’s motion with respect to plaintiff’s negligence cause of action. “[C]ases involving injuries inflicted by domestic animals may only proceed under strict liability based on the owner’s knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities, not on theories of common-law negligence” … . Blake v County of Wyo., 2017 NY Slip Op 00826, 4th Dept 2-3-17

ANIMAL LAW (COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO EVIDENCE SHELTER PERSONNEL WERE AWARE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE THE DOG HAD BITTEN SOMEONE ELSE NOT IMPUTED TO SHELTER PERSONNEL, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO EVIDENCE SHELTER PERSONNEL WERE AWARE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE THE DOG HAD BITTEN SOMEONE ELSE NOT IMPUTED TO SHELTER PERSONNEL, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/DOG BITES (COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO EVIDENCE SHELTER PERSONNEL WERE AWARE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE THE DOG HAD BITTEN SOMEONE ELSE NOT IMPUTED TO SHELTER PERSONNEL, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

February 3, 2017

Animal Law

DOG INJURED PLAINTIFF BY RUNNING AND JUMPING UP ON HER IN PLAY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE DOG DID NOT HAVE A PROPENSITY TO JUMP IN PLAY EXCEPT ON COMMAND.

The Second Department determined the complaint in this dog-injury case was properly dismissed. It was alleged the dog ran at plaintiff at full speed, jumped up on its hind legs, struck plaintiff in the chest and knocked her to the ground:

To recover in strict liability in tort for damages caused by a dog, the plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s 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] known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of the overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant liable for damages resulting from such an act” … .

The defendants’ submissions, including the deposition testimony of the defendants and the plaintiffs, as well as the defendants’ affidavits, demonstrated that prior to the subject incident, the dog was not aggressive, and did not growl or spontaneously jump on people in the fashion described by the injured plaintiff. The defendants did not restrain the dog to keep it away from guests in their home. Accordingly, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While the plaintiffs note that the defendants “trained” their dog to jump up on them on command, the deposition testimony of the defendants made clear that the dog only did so when prompted and only on immediate family members. They specifically testified that their dog had never jumped on an individual outside the immediate family. Such a jump on command is very different from the type of jump described by the injured plaintiff. Gammon v Curley, 2017 NY Slip Op 00630, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

ANIMAL LAW (DOG INJURED PLAINTIFF BY RUNNING AND JUMPING UP ON HER IN PLAY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE DOG DID NOT HAVE A PROPENSITY TO JUMP IN PLAY EXCEPT ON COMMAND)/DOGS (DOG INJURED PLAINTIFF BY RUNNING AND JUMPING UP ON HER IN PLAY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE DOG DID NOT HAVE A PROPENSITY TO JUMP IN PLAY EXCEPT ON COMMAND)

February 1, 2017

Animal Law, Negligence

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the appellate division, determined the proximate cause of the accident presented a jury question. Defendants own a farm from which a calf, born that day, escaped. Plaintiff’s decedent saw the calf in the roadway, stopped her car and got out to help the calf. She was then struck by a vehicle and killed. The appellate division held that the escaped calf created a condition for the accident, but was not a proximate cause of the accident. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case law addressing when an intervening act severs the causal connection and held that, under these facts, proximate cause presented a jury question:

The very same risk that rendered negligent the Farm’s alleged failure to restrain or retrieve its farm animal — namely, that the wandering calf would enter a roadway and cause a collision — was, in fact, the risk that came to fruition … . That the Farm could not predict the exact manner in which the calf would cause injury to a motorist does not preclude liability because the general risk and character of injuries was foreseeable … . … Thus, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the Farm’s negligence merely furnished the occasion for the collision or that the accident resulting in decedent’s death did not flow from the Farm’s negligent conduct in permitting its calf to stray.

A factfinder could reasonably conclude that decedent’s actions in exiting her vehicle and entering the roadway were an entirely “‘normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence'” … . In Hastings v Sauve, we held that a property owner may be liable under ordinary principles of tort law when he or she, through negligent acts or omissions, allows a farm animal — specifically, a domestic animal as defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7) — to stray from the property on which the animal is kept (see 21 NY3d at 125-126). … Thus, a jury could reasonably conclude that it is foreseeable that a motorist who encounters such an animal on a rural roadway would attempt to remove the animal from the thoroughfare. Such conduct cannot, as a matter of law, be considered so “extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct,” that it breaks the chain of causation … . Hain v Jamison, 2016 NY Slip Op 08583, CtApp 12-22-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/ANIMAL LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/INTERVENING CAUSE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/CONDITION VERSUS PROXIMATE CAUSE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/FORESEEABILITY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)

December 22, 2016

Animal Law, Landlord-Tenant

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD LIABLE FOR BITE BY TENANT’S DOG.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied the landlord’s (appellant’s) motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case. The plaintiff was bitten by a tenant’s dog. The court explained the relevant law:

… [To] “recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog on a theory of strict liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord: (1) had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises; (2) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities, and (3) had sufficient control of the premises to allow the landlord to remove or confine the dog'” … .

… [T]he appellant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third cause of action insofar as asserted against him … . In support of his motion, he submitted, inter alia, his deposition transcript and the deposition transcripts of the injured plaintiff and [the tenant]. This evidence demonstrated, prima facie, that the appellant was not aware, nor should have been aware, that the dog had any vicious propensities … . In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the dog did indeed have vicious propensities and whether the appellant knew or should have known of them … . Kim v Hong, 2016 NY Slip Op 06698, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

ANIMAL LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD LIABLE FOR BITE BY TENANT’S DOG)/LANDLORD-TENANT (DOG BITE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD LIABLE FOR BITE BY TENANT’S DOG)/DOG BITE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD LIABLE FOR BITE BY TENANT’S DOG)

October 12, 2016

Animal Law, Civil Procedure

INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Fourth Department determined a 17-year-old (Taquilo) could be liable for a dog bite, despite the fact that the dog was owned by his father (Rogelio). The court further determined the punitive damages claim against Taquilo properly survived the motion for summary judgment:

We reject defendants’ contention that Taquilo is relieved of potential liability for the child’s injuries based upon Taquilo’s age at the time of the incident. “It is elementary in this State that an infant may be held civilly liable for damages caused by his [or her] tortious acts” … , and defendants cite no authority to support their contention that an infant cannot be subject to strict liability for harm caused by an animal. Nor is it dispositive that the dog was owned by Taquilo’s father, Rogelio. “Strict liability can . . . be imposed against a person other than the owner of an animal which causes injury if that person harbors or keeps the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensit[ies]” … . Here, defendants’ own submissions raise issues of fact whether Taquilo harbored the dog … , and whether he knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities … . Cruz v Stachowski, 2016 NY Slip Op 06327, 4th Dept 9-30-16

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/DOG BITE (INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DOG BITE, INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

September 30, 2016

Animal Law

EVEN IF ANIMAL SHELTER FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFF OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DOG BITE; PLAINTIFF HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE VICIOUS PROPENSITIES PRIOR TO THE BITE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant animal shelter could not be held liable for a dog bite, even if the shelter breached its duty to inform plaintiff, who adopted the dog, of the dog’s vicious propensities. The plaintiff observed the dog’s vicious propensities after bringing the dog home. Therefore, the animal shelter’s breach was not the proximate cause of the bite:

“For [two hundred] 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” … . “If such animal be delivered [by the owner] to another, he [or she] must inform such person of the animal’s vicious characteristics, so far as known, or ascertainable by the exercise of reasonable care. If such information be given, or the person to whom the animal is delivered knows, or before injury ascertains, the vicious character of the animal, the owner is not liable” … . The rationale for such rule is self-evident—informing a person who takes possession of an animal about the animal’s vicious propensities allows that person to take precautionary measures to protect himself or herself and others from harm caused by that animal’s vicious propensities.

Here, even if the defendant breached its duty to disclose the dog’s vicious propensities known to it, or “ascertainable by the exercise of reasonable care” at the time of the plaintiff’s adoption … , by failing to inform the plaintiff that the dog had previously bitten someone in the face, any such breach was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The dog’s displays of aggressive behavior during the three and a half months the plaintiff owned it, and the fact that it first bit the plaintiff on July 13, 2012, gave the plaintiff sufficient knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities before she was bitten again on September 3, 2012 … . Tighe v North Shore Animal League Am., 2016 NY Slip Op 05807, 2nd Dept 8-17-16

ANIMAL LAW (EVEN IF ANIMAL SHELTER FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFF OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DOG BITE; PLAINTIFF HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE VICIOUS PROPENSITIES PRIOR TO THE BITE)/DOG BITE (EVEN IF ANIMAL SHELTER FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFF OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DOG BITE; PLAINTIFF HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE VICIOUS PROPENSITIES PRIOR TO THE BITE)

August 17, 2016