Personal Injury attorney William P. Moore recently utilized an April 2025 decision from the New York State Court of Appeals to achieve a significant settlement for his client, who was the victim of a dog attack.
Decades of Injustice for Victims of Domestic Animal Attacks
In 2006, the New York State Court of Appeals issued a ruling, which significantly limited a victim’s right to seek justice if they had been harmed by a dog bite or other domestic animal attack.
In the 2006 case of Bard v. Jahnke, the Court of Appeals ruled that the owner of a domestic animal cannot be held liable for negligence when their pet causes harm to others. This ruling set a precedent that was applied for nearly 20 years in New York State, which significantly limited the extent that pet owners can be held accountable for harm that their dog or other domestic animal caused.
Since 2006, New York has been at odds with 36 other states in the U.S. that expressly recognize negligence as a distinct potential cause for animal-induced injuries. However, in April 2025, the New York State Court of Appeals overturned the Bard decision.
2025 Court Ruling Overturns Precedent for Animal Attack Cases
On April 17, 2025, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that owners of dogs and other domestic animals can be held responsible for harm caused by their pets due to negligence. This ruling overturned nearly 20 years of precedent that was set by the 2006 Bard decision.
In April 2025, the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the case of Flanders v. Goodfellow, which involved a postal carrier who was injured as the result of a dog bite.
In the Flanders decision, the Court of Appeals refers to the 2006 Bard decision as “unworkable and in some circumstances unfair.” The court went on to state that the rule of nonliability set by the Bard precedent is “out of tune” with modern-day needs.
Addressing the responsibilities of pet owners, the court’s Flanders decision notes “When people go about their daily lives, the law generally requires them to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.”
The court’s Flanders ruling plainly states “We conclude that the time has come to set aside Bard’s rule that an owner of a domestic animal may not be held liable in negligence for harms caused by their animal.”
Based on the April 2025 Flanders ruling, victims of an injury caused by domestic animals have two options to approach owner liability:
- Victims of an animal-induced injury can recover damages if the owner of the animal knew or should have known that the animal had “vicious propensities.”
- Victims of an animal-induced injury can recover damages if the owner of the animal was negligent and failed to exercise due care under the circumstances that caused the injury.
Use of Appellate Decision Leads to Significance Result for Dog Bite Victim
Attorney William Moore acted swiftly and purposefully to apply the Flanders decision to benefit his client, who was the victim of a dog attack.
Mr. Moore’s client was a delivery person who was attempting to place a package on the front porch of a residence. As the delivery person approached the residence, a pit-bull charged out of the front door and attacked him. The pit-bull attack resulted in the delivery person suffering serious injuries.
Armed with the recent Court of Appeals decision in Flanders, Mr. Moore applied the new law and secured a prompt resolution for his client. Mr. Moore noted “No longer can insurance carriers use the law as a shield in cases where people are seriously injured or even killed by a domestic animal. This expansion of the law is a game-changer, providing a real pathway to justice for victims of dog attacks.”
For More Information
If you would like information about the rights of victims of animal attacks in New York State, click here to contact attorney William Moore.
