In April 2025, the Court of Appeals decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow expanded the possibility of recovery for animal attack victims. Finally, New York State allows negligence claims for these attacks, which opens the door for more victims to recover for their injuries.
Facts of Flanders
Rebecca Flanders was a postal carrier. She had her shoulder tore open– requiring multiple surgeries – at the front door of Stephen Goodfellow’s house when Goodfellow’s 70 pound dog attacked her. Rebecca Flanders sued Goodfellow, and despite having witnesses that said Goodfellow’s dog would bite at windows, jump on people, and had previously attacked another dog, the lower courts dismissed Flander’s case. The lower courts claimed there was no evidence that Goodfellow witnessed his dog act viciously on previous occasions, and therefore he had no notice of the dog’s “vicious propensities”.
History of dog bite / animal attack law
Prior to the Court of Appeals intervening in Flanders, the lower courts followed New York’s historical dog bite law. Previously, the legal maxim in New York State was that “every dog gets one free bite.” This meant that, unless a dog owner had notice that their dog was dangerous (i.e. had “vicious propensities”), the dog owner was not liable for injuries that their dog caused. The rule also extended to other domestic animals. Basically, if you were the victim of an animal attack, you could only prove the animal owner was liable if the owner had actual knowledge (i.e. witnessed) the animal’s viciousness or had constructive knowledge (i.e. should have known) of the animal’s viciousness. In execution, victims had difficulty in meeting that strict liability standard. Owners rarely would admit their dogs had vicious propensities, and witnesses that were willing to say the animal was vicious were hard to find.
The New Law – Negligence and reasonable care apply
With Flanders, the Court of Appeals finally recognized that it was unfair to shift the burden of reasonable care and cost from animal owners to the victims of animal attacks. The Court of Appeals reinstated Rebecca Flanders’ lawsuit and expanded the possibilities for viable animal attack cases. Now, animal attack victims can attempt to prove two claims against an owner:
1. They can sue for strict liability for the owner’s knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities prior to the attack; and
2. They can sue for negligence, in which the victim can show the owner failed to exercise reasonable care of their animal, and the animal injured the victim because of the owner’s failure of proper care.
Negligence is the new basis for an animal attack case. And, as the Court of Appeals described it, the concept of their Flanders ruling is that “when people go about their daily lives, the law generally requires them to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.” This is the same principle that applies to car accident cases and other areas of personal injury law: In certain settings, you owe others a duty of reasonable care. And if you breach that duty of care and your negligence injures another person, you are liable for that person’s injuries.
Takeways:
The Flanders decision is a major decision in New York State personal injury law. Everyone should be aware of the following:
1. If you are the victim of an animal attack in the past three years, you should re-explore your claim with a personal injury attorney. Flanders expanded the possibilities for viable animal attack lawsuits.
2. If you are an animal owner, you must ensure you are exercising reasonable care in controlling your animal. Your animal may not be vicious, but if you fail to reasonably control them (for example, letting your excited dog jump on someone), you could be liable if your animal causes an injury.
3. If you have domestic animals that interface with the public, you should make sure that you have liability insurance for the animal.
If you believe you have a claim based on an animal attack, please contact this firm to set up a free consultation.
