New York Court of Appeals Expands Liability for Animal Attacks
In a major decision reshaping personal injury law in New York, the New York State Court of Appeals (which is the State’s highest court) issued a ruling on April 17, 2025 in the case of Flanders v. Goodfellow.
Rebecca Flanders was a postal worker and was delivering a package to the Goodfellows’ home when she was attacked by a dog that escaped from the home. Ms. Flanders, as the plaintiff in the case, brought claims under both strict liability and negligence against the Goodfellows, who were the defendant homeowners and dog owners.
Under longstanding New York law — specifically the 2006 decision in Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006) — plaintiffs injured by domestic animals have been restricted, or limited, to strict liability claims only. The law did not provide for a claim based on negligence theories as well. Therefore, to succeed, a victim of an attack by a dog or other domestic animal had to prove that the animal had dangerous propensities and that the owner of the animal knew, or should have known, of those propensities.
That is, a plaintiff needed to prove that the owner had actual knowledge of the vicious nature of the animal. Negligence claims, based on unreasonable conduct, were not permitted.
What Flanders v. Goodfellow Means for Personal Injury Victims
In Flanders, the Court of Appeals recognized the unfairness and rigidity of this rule. The court held that plaintiffs may now bring common law negligence claims for injuries caused by domestic animals in addition to strict liability claims. This change brings New York in line with the majority of other States.
Understanding the difference between strict liability and common law negligence is key:
- Strict liability imposes responsibility on the animal’s owners without regard to their conduct but only if the plaintiff can prove the owner knew or should have known the animal was dangerous.
- Negligence, by contrast, focuses on whether the owner failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm, regardless of the animal’s prior behavior.
The court’s decision dramatically expands the avenues of recovery for personal injury victims. Plaintiffs no longer are forced to establish prior vicious propensities to seek justice.
Now, they can argue that an owner acted unreasonably — for example, by failing to secure a gate, failing to use a leash, or leaving a dog unattended — without having to show that the dog had actually bitten someone before and/or that the owner had actual knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities.
Trying to prove what someone actually knew can be a heavy burden, especially if the defendant can simply deny ever knowing something, as the defendants did in Flanders v. Goodfellow.
Ultimately, Flanders v. Goodfellow marks a progressive shift in New York tort law, strengthening protections for injury victims and ensuring that negligent animal owners are held accountable.
If you or a loved one has been injured by an animal, contact our experienced team today to discuss your rights under New York’s evolving personal injury laws.
You can contact our personal injury team at (716) 839-9700, e-mail David Goodman at dgoodman@coppolalegal.com, or visit our website www.coppolalegal.com
