For more than a decade, New York has been a “unique outlier” among the states, rejecting recovery of damages for personal injuries sustained by a domestic animal on the theory of negligence. See Doerr v. Goldsmith, 25 N.Y.3d 1114, 1149 (2015) (Fahey, J., dissenting).

Prior thereto, the prospect of a negligence claim structured the activity of New Yorkers relative to their domestic animals, be it a horse (see, e.g., Dickson v. McCoy, 39 N.Y. 400, 401-03 (1868); Unger v. Forty-Second St. & Grand St. Ferry R.R. Co., 51 N.Y. 497, 500 (1873), Benoit v. Troy & L. R. Co., 154 N.Y. 223, 225-27 (1897)), or, more prevalently, a dog (see, e.g., Hyland v. Cobb, 252 N.Y. 325, 326-27 (1929); Young v. Wyman, 76 N.Y.2d 1009, 1012 (1990)).

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]