In New York, when a dog attacks a person, the dog’s owner is strictly liable but only if the owner was on notice of the dog’s “vicious propensities.” The question in this case is whether this rule also applies to people who own a property where a dog attack occurs–here, the waiting room of a veterinary practice where plaintiff was bitten. Supreme Court applied the dog-owner rule and dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the veterinary practice.
A divided panel of the Third Department affirmed. Following other departments of the Appellate Division, see Easley v. Animal Med. Ctr., 161 A.D.3d 525 (1st Dep’t 2018); Hargro v. Ross, 134 A.D.3d 1461 (4th Dep’t 2015); Christian v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., 54 A.D.3d 707 (2d Dep’t 2008), the majority held that the rule limiting a dog owner’s liability should also apply to premises owners where a dog attack occurs and concluded that there was no evidence that the veterinary practice in this case was aware of the dog’s vicious propensities before the attack.
The dissenter would not have applied the dog-owner rule to premises owners, noting that the rule was based on a dog owner’s familiarity with her dog and was therefore a poor fit for premises owners, who did not have the same opportunity to observe a dog’s “personality and demeanor and act accordingly.” The dissenter would have instead remitted the case for a trial on the question of negligence under the general principles applicable to premises owners–namely, whether the veterinary practice maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition and/or adequately exercised control over the people on the premises.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Return to the case page for Hewitt v. Palmer Veterinary Clinic.