What responsibility do you have if your pet hurts someone?
That’s the question that arose after Eileen Napolitano and her schnauzer entered the Boro Park Deli Grocery in Brooklyn’s Borough Park section a few years ago. As reported Tuesday in The New York Law Journal, a large, gray cat stepped out from a shelf of Entenmann’s cakes and flailed at her dog. Napolitano contended that when she picked up her pup, the cat attacked her right leg and injured her calf.
Napolitano sued the deli in a case that presented the issue whether the deli’s owner had a reason to suspect that the feline was dangerous. At trial, the owner contended that he had no reason to suspect that the cat was dangerous. He also alleged that it wasn’t his cat. Napolitano introduced evidence that the owner had kept the cat at the deli at least 10 days prior to the incident.
Picturing the scene?
Judge Francois Rivera of the state Supreme Court in Brooklyn rejected Napolitano’s claim because she was unable to prove that the owner knew of the animal’s propensity to attack.
The New York Law Journal cites several decisions in recent years by the state’s courts that reinforce Rivera’s holding, which, as the publication notes, is based on a refusal to recognize negligence as a cause of action against owners of domesticated animals. Here in New York, you’re not liable for negligence if your pet or domesticated animal hurts someone. But you will be liable — without any examination of fault — if you knew of the animal’s dangerous or vicious propensities.
That policy, which is sometimes referred to as the “one bite rule,” distinguishes New York from states that hold pet owners liable for negligence if the owner fails to take reasonable steps to safeguard people who visit their homes or business premises.
Some New York judges have suggested that it’s time to jettison the policy. In a 2006 ruling, New York’s Court of Appeals, by a vote of 4 to 3, denied recovery to Larry Bard, a self-employed carpenter who suffered a lacerated liver and fractured ribs after being charged in a pen by Fred, a hornless dairy bull who roamed the enclosure for the purpose of impregnating cows.
The evidence produced at trial established that prior to the incident Fred had never threatened anyone. That led the court to conclude that the owner of the dairy farm was not liable for Bard’s injuries.
Writing for the majority, Judge Susan Phillips Read reaffirmed the state’s refusal to subject owners of domestic animals to liability for negligence. According to Read:
We have never, however, held that particular breeds or kinds of domestic animals are dangerous, and therefore when an individual animal of the breed or kind causes harm, its owner is charged with knowledge of vicious propensities. Similarly, we have never held that male domestic animals kept for breeding or female domestic animals caring for their young are dangerous as a class. We decline to do so now, or otherwise to dilute our traditional rule under the guise of a companion common-law cause of action for negligence.
However, some of Read’s colleagues faulted the majority’s logic. “Why should a person who is negligent in managing an automobile or a child be subject to liability, and not one who is negligent in managing a horse or bull,” wrote Judge Robert S. Smith in dissent. “Why should a person hit by a subway train be able to recover and one hit by a breeding bull be left without a remedy?”