LEGAL UPDATE
This ruling puts more responsibility on property owners to anticipate risk and put measures in place to prevent future incidents.
On April 17, 2025, the New York’s highest court issued a decision that dramatically lowers a plaintiff’s bar to recovery for injuries caused by dogs and other domestic pets. The Court’s decision is will likely lead to a substantial increase in personal injury lawsuits tied to alleged pet owner negligence and similar claims. A link to the Court’s decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow is provided below.
Historically, in New York, a pet owner could only be held liable where there was evidence that the owner knew or had reason to know that their animal had a “vicious propensity.” Often misdescribed as the “One Bite Rule”, this standard did not necessarily require evidence of a prior bite or attack and could be satisfied by showing the owner’s awareness of other dangerous or threatening behaviors such as a tendency to growl, snap or bare teeth. In cases where the injured party was able to demonstrate this “vicious propensity”, the owner would be held strictly liable for any subsequent attacks. Litigants could not recover, however, under a basic negligence theory, which is a much lower threshold and only requires showing that the owner failed to exercise “due care.” Under the new rule articulated by Flanders, plaintiffs can recover money if they prove “vicious propensity” or if they can satisfy the much lower negligence standard.
Key Takeaways from the Flanders Decision:
- Negligence claims are now allowed: “dog bite” and similar plaintiffs are now armed with an additional and alternative theory of recovery that will be easier to substantiate in most cases;
- Evidentiary considerations: Litigants are no longer required to present evidence that the owner was aware of a domestic pet’s “vicious propensity” and incidents that were previously not actionable, such as dogs jumping on or rushing towards people, are now in play;
- Increased litigation: Flanders potentially opens the door to a flood of new cases proceeding under the lower negligence track. Further, issues not relevant under the strict liability standard will now need to be litigated, such as the reasonableness of the pet owner’s conduct and precautionary measures and the plaintiff’s comparative fault. The dearth of New York precedent on some of these issues will no doubt result in even more, protracted litigation.
Click here for a full version of the court’s decision: Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025 NY Slip Op 02261).
What Should Pet Owners Do?
This ruling puts more responsibility on property owners to anticipate risk and put measures in place to prevent future incidents. Considering this, here are some steps policyholders can take to help reduce the risk of future claims:
- Secure pets when visitors, delivery carriers, or contractors are on the property.
- Post warning signs where appropriate.
- Monitor your dog’s activity, even in the backyard. They can be startled and act out!
- Document past complaints or incidents, and how you responded.
- Review your liability coverage and ask about exclusions related to animals.
- If you rent to pet owners, consider updating lease language and requiring proper documentation.
Additional information on preventing dog bites is available from the ASPCA, the American Humane Society, and the American Kennel Club.
SterlingRisk is committed to helping you and your loved ones stay safe. For additional risk management guidance, contact us today.
DISCLAIMER: This article is provided by SterlingRisk for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. For legal advice, consult with your legal counsel.
