Ten years ago, the Court of Appeals set the bar for the ability to sue for personal injuries caused by domestic animals, which required a plaintiff to prove that the animal had “vicious propensities” at the time of, or prior to, the incident. In the past decade, there has been an erosion of this strict liability rule trending toward causes of action on the theory of negligence. This article highlights the leading cases demonstrating this evolution to ease a plaintiff’s burden of proof in seeking recovery in such circumstances.
In Collier v. Zambito,1 the Court of Appeals denied recovery to the plaintiff child who was bitten in the face by a leashed dog, notwithstanding that the owner encouraged the boy to approach the dog which then lunged at him and bit him, establishing the criteria to be followed in such cases.
This content has been archived.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
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]
