Victims Can Now Sue for Injuries by Pets Caused by Negligence

Flanders, a postal carrier, was delivering a package to a couple on their front porch, when the couple's 70-lb. dog ran past the homeowner and attacked the postal worker. The dog bite tore a muscle in Flanders' shoulder, leading to multiple surgeries and permanent scarring. Flanders sued the homeowners, claiming strict liability, arguing that they knew or should have known that the dog was dangerous. She also argued negligence because they failed to prevent the attack. The court and appeals court dismissed both claims, finding insufficient proof for strict liability and relying on a prior Court of Appeals decision that had barred negligence claims for domestic animal injuries. Flanders then appealed to NY's highest court. 

In a landmark decision, NY's Court of Appeals ruled that Flanders had presented enough evidence to present a genuine dispute about whether the homeowners should have known their dog posed a risk. The Court also overturned the prior NY rule that blocked negligence claims against pet owners and which limited victims to strict liability claims. Under the Court's decision, victims could now sue for negligence if a pet owner failed to act reasonably to prevent harm, even without proof of prior dangerous behavior. This was consistent with rulings in most other states. The Court of Appeals reinstated Flanders' claims and sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration.

Flanders v. Goodfellow: 2025 NY Slip Op 02261 (Ct. App.; 4/17/25; Halligan, J, Wilson, CJ, Rivera, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman, J)