Legal 'Dog Bite King' Explains Blockbuster High Court Ruling for Dog Bite Victims in New York

Dog bite victims in New York can now recover damages through negligence.

Press Release
Albany, NY - On Friday, the highest court in New York issued a landmark ruling for dog bite victims. Dog owners can now be held liable for negligence when their dog injures a person. The Flanders v. Goodfellow decision overruled a 2006 decision (Bard v. Jahnke) that "denied victims the right to sue for careless handling of a dangerous dog," states dogbitelaw.com in a press release. "For the first time in nearly 20 years, dog bite victims in New York can pursue compensation based on negligence."

Dog bite victims in New York can now pursue two of the three legal options to obtain compensation, states attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com. The first option is the one bite rule, where a victim must prove the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities (such as by a previous bite) in order to recover damages. The second option, a legal right that residents in all other states have always had, and now New York joins them, is to recover damages based on negligence.

The third option, and the most modern, is the ability for victims to pursue compensation based on statutory strict liability. Nearly 30 states impose strict liability, where a legislature has adopted a well-drafted dog bite law, making a dog owner legally liable to a victim who was bitten or attacked without the victim having to prove negligence or the one bite rule. The third option remains restricted to dog bite victims in New York, because it is a "mixed dog bite statute state," along with several others.

The lower courts dismissed Flanders’s negligence cause of action as barred by Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]), which held that there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm. Experience has shown that this rule is in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair ...

Flanders asks us to overrule that aspect of Bard and to recognize negligence as an alternative to strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals ...

"Although a court should be slow to overrule its precedents, there is little reason to avoid doing so when persuaded by the ‘lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning’ " ... Thus, where we have concluded that a "rule of nonliability is out of tune with the life about us, at variance with modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair dealing," we have overruled it. - Flanders v. Goodfellow

Dogbitelaw.com describes the background of Bard. "The facts of Bard illustrate this harsh rule. Mr. Bard, a carpenter, was seriously injured by a breeding bull while working in a barn. He hadn’t been warned the bull was inside. The bull, named Fred, had never hurt anyone before. Because of that, the defendants claimed they had no duty to warn Bard or remove Fred from the barn. Bard’s lawsuit was dismissed. He got nothing for his broken ribs, torn liver, or aggravated spine injury," writes Phillips.

Although Bard is about a "breeding bull", which the appellants argued, "'bulls, in particular breeding bulls, are generally dangerous and vicious animals,' and that therefore Jahnke should have restrained the bull or warned Bard of its presence," Bard also has breed-specific influences. The Court found appellants' argument unavailing, especially in light of its consistent view that "the particular type or breed of domestic animal alone is insufficient to raise a question of fact as to vicious propensities."

What Happened in Flanders?

"Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was bitten by a dog owned by Defendants Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow while delivering a package to their residence," wrote the Court in Flanders v. Goodfellow. She began an action to recover damages from her injuries through strict liability and negligence. In New York, strict liability is obtainable by proving the one bite rule. Lower courts dismissed both causes of action. Flanders appealed to this Court, who reversed Bard, and reinstated both causes of action.

The facts in the Flanders case are powerful. The dog sprayed saliva and "slammed into window glass." The attack occurred on December 8, 2018.

On that day, Flanders arrived at Goodfellow's house to deliver mail, but found their mailbox missing. She drove into the horseshoe driveway to leave a package on the porch. As she did, she heard a dog barking, but saw no warning signs or alerts on her scanner. Stephen Goodfellow opened the door. As she handed him the package and told him about the mailbox, she "heard the sound of nails 'ticking' on a hardwood floor." The dog slipped through the door, lunged at Flanders' neck, and bit her shoulder.

Stephen Goodfellow opened the door to meet Flanders on the porch. As she handed him the package and began to tell him that the mailbox was down, Flanders heard the sound of nails "ticking" on a hardwood floor and saw a large dog approaching the door from inside the house. The dog slipped past Stephen through the open door and, as Stephen yelled its name, lunged towards Flanders’s neck. Flanders raised her hand to cover her face and neck. The dog bit her shoulder, latching its teeth into her flesh and breaking skin. With the package still in hand, Stephen tugged at the dog to release its hold. When he managed to break the dog’s grip, Flanders went directly to her vehicle without looking back. She later learned that the dog bite had caused a "snap tear" in her shoulder muscle, an injury that required multiple surgeries and resulted in permanent scarring. - Flanders v. Goodfellow

Evidence showed the 70 pound dog "yank[ed] people around" when leashed, even "dragg[ing] Michelle to the ground." The Goodfellows hired a dog trainer. After a two week session, Michelle posted on social media that their dog could now run "off leash in the yard," was no longer "jumping," and "tolerate[d] other moving critters." The couple testified the "dog did not interact with strangers because they did not enter the house," and they "had never seen the dog growl or bare its teeth."

Flanders produced sworn affidavits from two postal workers who had delivered mail to the Goodfellows' home over a few year period. One of them said that when he approached the house, the couple's dog "would actually bite the window, as though it was trying to bite you," causing its "saliva [to] project onto the window." The dog also slammed into the window glass, "as though it was trying to get through to attack." The other postal worker testified to similar experiences with the dog.

One of them said that when he approached the house, the Goodfellows’ dog "would actually bite the window, as though it was trying to bite you," causing its "saliva [to] project onto the window." The dog would bare its teeth "during these episodes, and it barked, snarled, and growled. It also slammed into the window glass, as though it was trying to get through and attack." The worker asserted that the Goodfellows’ dog was "the most aggressive" he had ever encountered on his routes, and he was "sure" that "if the dog’s owners were home when these deliveries occurred or they have surveillance footage of the dog’s actions during these deliveries, they knew or should have known the dog was aggressive or dangerous before the attack" ...

The other postal worker ... said that nearly every time he delivered a package to the front porch, he could see the dog through the glass windows on either side of the door. It "was extremely loud, barking and snarling, and slamming its face and head into the glass in what looked to be an attempt to attack [him] through the glass." He "believe[d] that home residents would have witnessed the dog’s behavior," noting that the dog "was extremely loud and created a huge ruckus such that anybody home would have known of it" - Flanders v. Goodfellow

The trial court, which is the Supreme Court in New York (see diagram), awarded the Goodfellows summary judgment and dismissed the claim. The court found the affidavits from the postal workers insufficient because neither proved the Goodfellows were home at the time or that the owners otherwise knew about the dog's behavior. Thus, Flanders' cause of action for strict liability, which required proving the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities, failed.

Due to the Bard decision, which barred the negligence cause of action, holding that "there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm," Flanders' cause of action for negligence was dismissed too. Flanders appealed to the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, which affirmed both parts. Flanders failed to demonstrate the owners knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities and Flanders' negligence cause of action was properly dismissed.

The highest court issued a response to both parts, finding that both lower courts errored in granting summary judgment for the strict liability cause of action. "A court reviewing a motion for summary judgment must view the facts "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" and it may not "make credibility determinations or findings of fact," wrote the Court. In other words, the affidavits of the other postal workers were a "triable issue of fact" and sufficient to continue the litigation.

In this same decision, the Court overruled Bard, finally recognizing "negligence as an alternative to strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals." Again, the "rule of nonliability is out of tune" with "modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair dealing," wrote the Court. Common law negligence is defined as, "the absence of care, according to the circumstances." A person acts negligently if the person "does not exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances."

The Court overruled Bard, attorney Phillips explains, because, "It shifted the burden of injury onto victims instead of negligent dog owners, and it discouraged owners from learning about their dog’s dangerous tendencies." Further, "36 other states recognized negligence; the rest had not rejected it." New York courts "had already chipped away at Bard through exceptions,1 and it was simply unfair." Flanders now gives New Yorkers two of the three legal options. But they also need the third.

A well-written statutory law enacted by a state legislature "offers compensation without forcing victims to prove the dog was known to be dangerous or the owner was careless. It’s limited -- it doesn’t apply to trespassers or those who provoke dogs -- but it covers most victims," writes Phillips. The ancient one bite rule and negligence are both common law. Modern law is developed through statutes, in this case a dog bite statute. The legal website urges the New York state legislature to "act now."

National Significance

The press release by dogbitelaw.com also states the decision in Flanders has national significance. Flanders "holds that negligence and the one bite rule are entirely separate grounds of liability," states the release. "The New York Court of Appeals’ emphasized that the one bite rule is entirely different than the negligence doctrine," Phillips tells CityWatch. "The one bite rule is based on what the animal actually did in the past, while the negligence doctrine focuses on what might happen in the future."

Many state courts and legislatures have mistakenly treated the two legal theories as one in the same, Phillips said. But as Flanders shows, the plaintiff can pursue compensation under both legal theories. "The one-bite rule demands proof that something similar already happened and the defendant knew it or should have known it. Establishing negligence does not require a prior similar act," Phillips tells CityWatch. "Therefore, the Flanders case has the potential to influence reforms in other states."

Dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com explains Flanders v. Goodfellow.

Related articles:
03/24/25: Ohio's Weak Dangerous Dog Laws: 4-Part Investigation by News Organizations
01/13/25: 2023 Unreported Dog Bite Fatality: Family Files Federal Lawsuit After Woman Killed...