In a landmark decision issued on April 17, 2025, New York State’s highest Court significantly expanded legal protections for individuals injured by domestic animals (dogs, cats, horses, livestock). The Court’s ruling in Flanders v. Goodfellow overturns the long-standing precedent that dog owners could be held responsible only if the owner knew of prior bad behavior. Without prior bad acts by the animal, owners could not be held responsible for injuries caused by the owner’s negligence. This ruling, which now allows victims to claim compensation for their injuries when pet owners act negligently, even if the pet has no prior history of bad behavior, will act to expand pet owner liability.
The Old Rule: One Free Bite
The old rule played out to permit one free “bad act.” Whether that be biting, jumping, or running in the street, the owner would not be held responsible unless the injured party could prove the owner was aware the dog had a history of problems. This could be a tall order for injured plaintiffs, who often have little or no information about the dog or its prior history. An owner who says, “He’s never done that before!” had a good defense to a claim.
If an owner knew of a dog’s vicious propensities, typically a prior bite or knowledge of conduct such as lunging, snapping, or barking aggressively, the owner was responsible for injuries caused by the dog, even if the owner did not act negligently.
For example, bad dog “Cujo” is left in the house under lock and key when good owner goes to work. Cujo has bitten a family member in the past, so the owner is careful. Good owner also has a six-foot fence around the house. While the owner is gone, Cujo breaks out a window, scales the 6-foot fence, and bites the neighbor. Since the owner knew of the dog’s vicious propensities before the incident, he will be held responsible for the injury despite having acted reasonably and without negligence when he left the house. This is called “strict liability” and applies whenever the owner is aware of a history of issues. There is no need to prove negligence by the owner to establish liability. The only real question is the value of the injuries caused by Cujo.
Conversely, “Fluffy” is a good dog with no known issues. Fluffy has an irresponsible owner who leaves for work in the morning and ties Fluffy to the front porch with a flimsy piece of yarn. Fluffy is getting thirsty and grouchy in the hot sun. Fluffy is also getting frustrated because she is watching the neighborhood children run and play ball. Fluffy loves balls and really wants the ball. She watches the kids run back and forth for hours, but can’t get to them. After many hours, she breaks free of her flimsy tie and runs to “catch” the children and the ball she wants so badly. In the process, she accidentally bites the leg of the child with the ball, causing severe injury. Under long-standing case law, the owner would not be held responsible for the injury despite the owner’s clear negligence. Fluffy was permitted “one free bite” before her owner would be held to have knowledge of her propensity to bite. The injured child could not make a claim for injuries against the bad owner for being negligent.
Understanding the Landmark Decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow: Implications for Dog Owner Liability in New York
The decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow is a game-changer. This case has significant implications for dog owners and personal injury victims seeking redress for injuries from dog bites or attacks. In a very rare move, the Court overturned its own prior decisions, recognizing that the prior caselaw unfairly placed the burden of injuries on those injured while sometimes giving a free pass to negligent dog owners.
The landmark decision underscores the importance of understanding the legal responsibilities associated with dog ownership. It is also an important precedent for those injured by animals due to the negligence of their owners.
Overview of the Case
The plaintiff, Jennifer Flanders, was bitten by a dog owned by the defendant, Thomas Goodfellow. Flanders was a postal worker who approached the porch of a home to make a delivery. Flanders opened the door, and his dog went out past him, lunging toward the neck of the postal worker. She turned and was bit in the shoulder. She suffered a severe injury that required surgical repair. The plaintiff pursued a claim in strict liability, stating the owner knew of the dog’s “vicious propensities”. Plaintiff also made a claim for the owner’s negligence in failing to restrain the dog and permitting him to run outside.
Evidence was presented that when other postal workers approached the property previously, the dog could be seen lunging at the window, growling, snarling, and biting at the glass. One postal worker described it as the most aggressive dog he had ever encountered on his route.
Despite this evidence, the lower Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, saying that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the owner was home and witnessed the dog’s prior behavior. The claim that the owner was negligent in failing to restrain the dog was also dismissed as a claim not permitted in New York. The appellate court agrees with the decision.
Historically, New York had no uniform statute governing dog bite liability. Instead, courts have often relied on the “one-bite rule,” which allows a dog owner to only be held liable if the owner had prior knowledge of the animal’s aggressive tendencies. However, Flanders vs Goodfellow case will be instrumental in reshaping how negligence claims against dog owners are viewed in New York.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeals reversed both of the lower courts and reinstated the plaintiff’s claim. In doing so, the Court clarified the “one-bite rule” and held that dog owners can be liable for negligence even without prior knowledge of a dog’s aggressive behavior.
Clarifying the ‘One-Bite Rule’: The Court clarified that New York is not strictly a “one-bite” state, meaning that an owner is not automatically free of liability just because their dog had never bitten anyone. The Court emphasized that prior incidents or knowledge of aggressive behavior could establish liability without an actual prior bite. Goodfellow’s claimed ignorance of the dog’s aggressive prior behavior was a question of credibility for the jury to determine. One could logically argue that it is hard to believe an owner would not be aware of such behavior when someone approaches the house.
Dog owners can be held responsible for their negligence: The Court of Appeals ruled that dog owners can be liable for injuries caused by their pets when they knowingly fail to manage their animals responsibly. The Court recognized that, “Tort law seeks to incentivize us to be mindful of the risk that our behavior might harm others by imposing a duty to act with due care … When people go about their daily lives, the law generally requires them to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm”. Further, that to preclude liability for negligence has proven to be “unjust” at times. It should be for a jury to decide if the incident resulted from “dogs just being dogs” or from the negligent failure of the owner to properly supervise his pet.
The ruling sets forth a clear standard for negligence; dog owners are expected to possess knowledge of their dogs’ behavior. If a dog owner fails to take reasonable precautions, the owner may be found negligent even if the dog hasn’t acted aggressively in the past.
Pursuant to the Flanders ruling, a plaintiff who is injured by a domestic animal now has a choice. “If the owner knew or should have known the animal had vicious propensities, the plaintiff may seek to hold them strictly liable. Or they can rely on rules of ordinary negligence and seek to prove that the owner failed to exercise due care under the circumstances. Of course, a plaintiff might also assert both theories of liability, as Flanders chose to do. The Court emphasized the duty of dog owners to ensure their pets are safe around people, particularly in public spaces.
This is an essential clarification for personal injury claimants, as it opens a new avenue for plaintiffs who may have been injured by otherwise “friendly” dogs or dogs they cannot prove had prior problems Liability will no longer depend solely on past behavior but also on the owner’s duty to manage their pet responsibly.
Implications for Dog Owners
At Lacy Katzen, we love dogs too! The Flanders ruling has far-reaching implications for dog owners in New York. This decision aligns New York State more closely with the growing national trend toward holding dog owners accountable for their pets’ actions regardless of the dog’s prior behavior.
What’s a responsible dog owner to do?
Dog owners would be wise to invest in proper training to mitigate potential risks. Moving forward, owners must be more vigilant in ensuring their dogs are adequately secured, especially in public places.
Owners may now face legal action not only for failing to restrain a dog known to be aggressive, but also for any owner negligence related to their pet’s behavior. Responsible pet ownership often just boils down to common sense. Investing time and effort into training your dog is a good idea. However, even a well-trained dog can unintentionally cause foreseeable harm. When the pizza delivery person comes to the door, or your 80-year-old neighbor comes for a visit, a reasonable pet owner would restrain their 60-pound excitable labrador even though he is friendly. After all, it’s not hard to imagine the dog could knock someone down.
Leash your dog in public places. A dog running in front of a car is not only dangerous to the dog but can cause an accident. Joggers or bikers can be injured if they are chased by even a friendly dog.
Understand and protect against barrier frustration. Barrier frustration is the anxiety, agitation, and excitement a dog experiences when a barrier prevents them from reaching something they desire, such as a person, another animal, or a toy. This frustration can manifest as barking, growling, jumping, lunging, or other reactive behaviors directed at the barrier. It is often a contributing factor to dog bites. As in our example involving Fluffy, when a dog gets free of the barrier, it will often chase and sometimes bite the object it has been watching and wanting. Something as simple as closing the drapes so your dog can’t watch the squirrel, or the neighborhood kids can help.
Don’t ask, don’t tell is not a good idea when it comes to insurance. Ensure your homeowner’s insurance company knows you have a dog. Many people think it’s a good idea not to tell the insurance company they have a dog. The whole reason you have insurance is to protect yourself in case something goes wrong. This is no exception. Failing to advise you have a dog could result in no coverage for injuries caused by the dog.
Be honest about the breed. Telling the insurance carrier that your pit bull is a boxer mix may seem like a good idea, but it’s not. Many insurance companies will not insure certain breeds; pit bulls, shepherds and dobermans are common examples. It won’t be hard for the insurance company to avoid coverage if you fib about the breed. You may need a special rider to obtain coverage for certain breeds. However, these riders are typically inexpensive unless the dog has a history.
Implications for Dog Bite Personal Injury Claims
The Flanders v. Goodfellow decision opens new avenues for personal injury lawyers to pursue claims on behalf of clients injured by dogs. Attorneys now have a broader legal framework to advocate for those who suffer injuries due to dog owner negligence. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it remains crucial for dog owners and potential victims alike to stay informed about their rights and responsibilities under this new precedent.
If you or a loved one is a dog bite victim, experience matters. Lacy Katzen LLP has been assisting those injured due to others’ negligence for over 75 years. Please contact us for a free consultation.
