It will be easier for victims of dog bites to hold pet owners liable thanks to a ruling last month from New York's highest court. The Court of Appeals unanimously overturned previous rulings holding dog owners to a “strict liability" standard, meaning that the owner had no defense against a lawsuit only if they had “actual or constructive knowledge of their animal's vicious propensities."
The case involved a postal worker bitten in 2018 by a 70-pound dog while delivering a package at a home. She heard a dog barking when she parked her truck in the driveway. After waiting to see if the dog was outside and finding that it wasn't, she exited the truck. The post office had not warned her of the presence of a dangerous dog at the home and no warning signs were displayed.
The homeowner greeted her at the door to accept the package, whereupon his dog slipped past him through the open door and lunged at the postal carrier's neck. As the owner called his name, the carrier shielded her face and neck with a hand and the dog bit her shoulder, breaking skin. As soon as the owner got the dog away from her, she quickly returned to the truck without looking back. She had suffered a torn shoulder muscle, requiring multiple surgeries and leaving her with permanent scars.
The owners testified that their dog had a history of being boisterous but not aggressive. Other postal workers who'd delivered there testified that the dog practically tried to jump through windows at them.
Despite that, lower courts dismissed her claim against the homeowners, saying that they had no actual or constructive knowledge of the dog having a vicious propensity, and thus they could not be held strictly liable. She then appealed to the Court of Appeals, asking them to overrule prior decisions holding that pet owners are not liable for ordinary negligence.
Writing for the court, Judge Caitlin J. Halligan said that, while they will overrule a prior decision “in the rarest of case," “… rarely does not mean never." She wrote that the rule requiring knowledge of vicious propensities had been eroded by a patchwork of later decisions. She also described the question as one of fairness: “(W)hy should someone harmed by a domestic animal bear the risk—and the cost—of injury, provided that the animal's owner did not know or have reason to know of a vicious propensity?"
The answer, a unanimous court said, was that they should not bear that risk. They overruled the prior decision and held that ordinary rules of negligence apply to pet owners.
This ruling means that it will be easier for dog bite victims to win lawsuits against dog owners. An increase in lawsuits over these injuries appears to be a likely consequence. Insurers paid $1.57 billion for dog bite claims in 2024, according to the Insurance Information Institute. In New York at least, that number is likely to grow.
While it is illegal for insurers to exclude coverage for bodily injury liability under Homeowners policies based solely on a dog's breed, this decision may influence the availability of Homeowners insurance. That type of insurance has become increasingly less available over the last few years. This decision is unlikely to improve the situation.
Big I NY members may want to inform their clients who own dogs about this decision and the implications for their own potential liability. With liability insurance, more is always better, so this is also a good time to discuss the need for higher limits and personal umbrella policies.
Dogs can be our best companions, but they come with risks. You can help your clients navigate those risks.