Source: https://mdafny.com/index.aspx?TypeContent=CUSTOMPAGEARTICLE&custom_pages_articlesID=14729
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:56:26+00:00

Document:
The traditional “vicious propensity” rule was applied by the Court of Appeals in Collier v. Zambito.12 The 12-year-old plaintiff was visiting the defendant’s home and was invited by defendant to pet defendant’s mixed breed dog, Cecil. As plaintiff approached, Cecil lunged and bit plaintiff’s face. Defendants sought summary judgment emphasizing that they did not have prior notice of Cecil’s vicious propensities, however, the Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Propensities to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation… [and the] knowledge of vicious propensities may of course be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice.
Simply put, the Court re-established that the only way for the owner of an animal to learn of its vicious propensities is to witness the animal acting on such tendencies.
In strong opposition, Judge Robert Smith dissented and recognized that adhering to such a rigid rule was antiquated and illogical. He perceived the majority’s decision as contrary to precedent, asserting that “[t]his Court [became] the first state court of last resort to reject the Restatement rule.” Expressing confidence in the Restatement (Second) Torts which provides that “[the] one who…harbors a domestic animal is subject to liability for harm done by animal…if [the][owner][was] negligent in failing to prevent the harm,”18 Justice Smith further opined that restricting recovery in such circumstances to strict liability was contrary to fairness and unworkable.
Such interpretations of the traditional rule, however, were short-lived. The Court of Appeals promptly stepped in and overturned both Appellate Division decisions.
The Court of Appeals then reversed the Fourth Department’s holding in Smith. 22 The Court invalidated the lower courts reliance on testimony that the dog, on three to five occasions, escaped defendant’s control, barked and ran towards the road, as insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact. Preserving the traditional “vicious propensity” rule, it became clear that the Court of Appeals had no intention of deviating from its traditional rule, or so it seemed.
Although a bright-line rule regarding domestic animal owner liability was set in place, lower courts were apprehensive in applying the rigid application of the traditional rule. Even so, these courts were well aware of their duty to dismiss any case where an animal’s prior vicious propensity could not be shown. However, in Hastings v. Sauve,, the Court of Appeals decided to sidestep its long held precedent.
The Third Department found that summary judgment was properly granted to defendants because the cow did not show any prior vicious propensities, stating that “it is not for this Court to alter [the traditional] rule and, while it is in place, we are obligated to enforce it.” Thus, the Appellate Division followed the Court of Appeals precedent.
The Court of Appeals had a change of heart, recognizing the growing dissatisfaction in the application of the traditional rule among the lower courts. The Court revisited Bard and Petrone in reversing the Third Department’s holdings in Hastings. It accepted the fact that to apply the rule of Bard “in a case like this would immunize defendants who take little or no care to keep their livestock out of the roadway or off of other people’s property.” The panel of judges included Judge R.S. Smith and Judge Piggott Jr. – the two justices who respectfully criticized the Court’s constant denial of allowing a negligence cause of action in prior cases. The Court did not “consider whether the same rule applie[d] to dogs, cats, or other household pets.”25 The Court further opined that the question regarding household pets “must await a different case,” thus leaving open the possibility that the traditional “vicious propensity” rule may be on its way out.
The Court of Appeals is seemingly expanding liability for animal owners. Given the language of the Hastings case, it appears that it is only a matter of time before the Court expands its holding in Hastings to household pets.
1. Richard J. Serpe, 2013 Dog Bite Statistics Show Rise, Virginia Dog Bite Lawyer (last visited Feb. 12, 2014), http://virginiadogbitelawyer.com/2013-dog-bite-statistics-show-rise-in-certain-dog-attacks/.
2. Filer v. Adams, 106 A.D.3d 1417, 1419 (3d Dep’t 2013).
3. Kenneth M. Phillips, New York Dog Bite Lawyer, Dog Bite Law (last visited Dec. 16, 2013), http://dogbitelaw.com/mixed-dog-bite-statute-states/new-york-dog-bite-law.html.
4. Hastings v. Sauve, 21 N.Y.3d 122, 125 (2013).
6. American Humane Association, http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/dog-bites.htmp (last visited Dec. 15, 2013).
8. Mary Randolph, Dog Owners’ Liability Insurance, Nolo Law for All (last visited Dec. 16, 2013), http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter11-8.html.
9. Kenneth M. Phillips, Dog Bite Statistics, Dog Bite Law (last visited Dec. 16, 2013), http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/dog-bite-statistics.html.
10. Randolph, supra note 8.
12. Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444, 446 (2004).
13. Massimo v. Monfredo, 272 A.D.2d 306, 307 (2d Dep’t 2000).
14. Rogers v. Travis, 229 A.D.2d 879, 880 (3d Dep’t 1996).
15. Lugo v. Angle of Green, Inc., 268 A.D.2d 567 (2d Dep’t 2000).
16. Mulhern v. Chai Mgmt., 309 A.D.2d 995, 997 (3d Dep’t 2003).
17. Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592, 599 (2006).
19. Petrone v. Fernandez, 53 A.D.3d 221, 222 (2d Dep’t 2008).
20. Smith v. Reilly, 83 A.D.3d 1492, 1493 (4th Dep’t 2011).
21. Petrone v. Reilly, 53 A.D.3d 221 (2d Dep’t 2008), rev’d, 12 N.Y.3d 546, 550 (2009).
22. Smith v. Reilly, 83 A.D.3d 1492 (4th Dep’t 2011), rev’d, 17 N.Y.3d 895, 896 (2011).
23. Hastings v. Sauve, 94 A.D.3d 1171 (3d Dep’t 2012), rev’d, 21 N.Y.3d 122, 124 (2013).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.