'On Constraint', the 'Vicious Propensities' Rule Continues
George M. Heymann writes: How often have trial judges been confronted with a rule of law that seems out of touch with the realities of the facts before them but are "constrained" to abide by it because of appellate court decisions. One such situation is the ongoing debate regarding the strict liability "vicious propensities" rule with respect to injuries caused by domestic animals, as a direct result of the owner's conduct, which prohibits recovery on the theory of negligence.
June 12, 2017 at 02:02 PM
23 minute read
How often have trial judges been confronted with a rule of law that seems out of touch with the realities of the facts before them but are “constrained” to abide by it because of certain decisions rendered by the appellate courts. Sometimes that frustration even occurs in the appellate division by the holdings of the Court of Appeals.
One such situation is the ongoing debate between the appellate divisions departments and the Court of Appeals, and within that court itself, regarding the strict liability “vicious propensities” rule with respect to injuries caused by domestic animals, as a direct result of the owner's conduct, which prohibits recovery on the theory of negligence.
The leading cases that are the subject of this debate are Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 (2004), Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006), Doerr v. Goldstein, 25 N.Y.3d 1114 (2015) and Hastings v. Suave, 21 N.Y.3d 122 (2013).1
'Collier'
In Collier, a young boy was injured when bitten on the face by defendant's dog. The dog was leashed and defendant encouraged the boy to approach. The dog lunged and bit him. Finding that there was no evidence that the owner was aware of prior vicious propensities of the dog, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was no basis to allow for recovery on the theory of negligence. Notwithstanding that this incident would not have occurred but for the defendant's actions, the court found that barking and running around is normal canine behavior unless it was proven to be threatening or menacing.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Nothing Routine' About Eric Adams Bribery, Prosecutors Tell Judge in Defending Charge
NYC Judge Holds Immigration Restriction Group in Contempt for Inadequate Response to AG Subpoena
Oved & Oved Loses Bid to Unmask Author of Bad Firm Review Online
'A Serious Crime': Venture Capitalist Sentenced to Prison for Trump-SPAC Insider Trading
Trending Stories
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250