Site icon Monaco Cooper Lamme & Carr PLLC

New York Unleashes Expanded Rights for Dog Bite Victims, Increased Liability for Dog Owners

On April 17, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals handed down a groundbreaking decision in the case of Flanders v. Goodfellow. This ruling changes how New York courts will handle dog bite and animal injury cases going forward.

It’s big news for both pet owners, who now have an increased exposure to liability for their animals, and people who have been hurt by animals, who now have a second avenue to sue for injuries.

What Happened in Flanders v. Goodfellow?

Rebecca Flanders, a postal worker, attempted to deliver a package to a house owned by Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow. She was on the porch and as she handed the package to Stephen, their 70-pound dog ran past him and attacked her, tearing a muscle in Flander’s shoulder requiring multiple surgeries and leaving permanent scarring. Flanders sued the Goodfellows, claiming:

The lower courts (Supreme and Appellate) did not agree with Flanders and dismissed her negligence claimed based on an older case, Bard v. Jahnke, which made it difficult for people to sue for negligence in animal injury cases. Flanders disagreed and appealed to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals Makes a Landmark Ruling

In its decision, the Court of Appeals changed the game for animal injury cases.

Strict liability means pet owners are responsible if they knew or should have known their animal had “vicious propensities.” This includes biting and lunging. New York has had the “one bite rule” for over 100 years, meaning liability attaches to a dog owner and property owner only if they had knowledge of some previous bad behavior, such as a prior bite, alas the “one bite rule”.

The Court of Appeals overturned Bard v. Jahnke, a ruling which previously blocked negligence claims against pet owners, limiting victims to strict liability. The Court decided this was outdated, complicated, and unfair to victims. Animal injury victims can now sue for negligence if a pet owner did not act reasonably to prevent harm, even if the animal had no prior bites.

The Court reinstated Flanders’ negligence claims and sent it back to the Supreme Court.

What This Means for Victims of Animal Injury

The New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Flanders creates a new approach where victims can pursue both:

The negligence option removes the hurdle of proving an owner’s prior knowledge, which often stopped cases from moving forward. This makes it more achievable for a victim to recover compensation, especially for first-time attacks. Victims of dog bites or other animal attacks gain significant advantages from the Flanders ruling.

What Victims of Animal Injury Should Do

What This Means for Pet Owners

Pet owners now have more responsibility than ever. You are not just responsible if you knew your pet was dangerous. If you fail to take common-sense precautions—like securing a dog that might escape—you could face a negligence lawsuit. Even if your dog has never bitten before, if it lunges at strangers and then attacks due to your oversight, that lack of control you could hold you responsible.

What Pet Owners Should Do:

If you have been the victim of a dog bite or animal attack, or are the owner of a pet and have been sued, we can help you. Call us at 518-855-3535 and one of our Dog Bite lawyers will assist you.

Exit mobile version