Q. Can you address any legal developments regarding an owner’s liability for farm animals which wander onto a public highway and cause an accident?
A. To update an issue that we addressed in a column last year, a recent decision by a New York appellate court has cast considerable doubt as to when, if ever, an owner may be held legally liable for injuries caused by a domestic animal which wanders onto a highway and causes an accident.
By way of background, claims for injuries inflicted by domestic animals have traditionally been approached under one of two legal theories: strict liability and negligence. Under a strict liability theory, an owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of a particular animal’s “vicious” or “abnormal” propensities may be held liable for any harm caused by the animal as a result of those propensities, regardless of any fault or lack of care on behalf of the owner. A “vicious propensity” is not necessarily limited to behavior which is dangerous or ferocious, but may include any proclivity to act in a way that puts others at a risk of harm. Most importantly, however, behavior that is considered normal or typical for the particular type of animal in question is insufficient to establish a vicious or abnormal propensity. For example, it is generally considered normal and typical behavior for a large dog to occasionally greet a person by rising onto their hind legs and pressing against them. Because this behavior is considered normal to the type of animal, it would be insufficient to support a strict liability claim, even if the result of the behavior was to cause injury to the person.
Owners Have a Care of Duty For Their Animals
Under a negligence theory, an owner of a domestic animal which is not otherwise vicious or abnormally dangerous is nevertheless under a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the animal from causing harm to others. Using the prior example, the owner of a large dog which engages in the typical canine behavior of greeting persons by jumping against them may be liable for failing to take reasonable precautions – such as restraining the dog or offering a warning – to prevent the foreseeable risk of harm to others.
For many years, strict liability and negligence remained alternative bases on which owners could be held liable for injuries caused by domestic animals. However, in a series of decisions issued over the past several years, the New York Court of Appeals has clarified that the owner of a domestic animal may now only be held liable under a strict liability theory and that claims based on negligence are no longer available. In other words, a person claiming an injury as a result of an act by a domestic animal will only be entitled to recover damages if it can be shown that the act was the result of an abnormal or vicious propensity on the part of the animal which was not otherwise typical behavior for that type of animal.
Most injuries involving domestic animals arise in circumstances where the animal makes a sudden, unexpected action (i.e., biting, kicking, rearing, bolting, jumping) toward or in close proximity to another person. The rule developed by the Court of Appeals seems to recognize that animals are by their nature unpredictable and that while an owner may be liable for abnormal or vicious traits in a particular animal, an owner should not be held responsible for typical animal behavior even where reasonable precautions might have prevented the injury.
What If the Animal Wanders Onto the Road?
The rule, however, gives rise to an interesting result in the case of animals which wander onto the highway. Animals such as cows and horses, by their nature, have an inherent tendency to wander if left unrestrained and unattended. For this reason, most owners recognize the need to keep such animals secured by fences, corrals, and barns. If an owner carelessly neglects to close and secure a barn door and an animal wanders out onto the highway and causes an accident, can that owner be held liable for any resulting injuries under the rules developed by the Court of Appeals?
At least one appellate Court has recently held that owners in such circumstances cannot be held liable. Applying the Court of Appeals’ holding that an owner’s liability may only be based on strict liability principles, the Third Department appellate court held in a case decided earlier this year that “wandering” by a domestic animal does not implicate any vicious or abnormal propensity, but is essentially an inherent and typical characteristic of animals. Given that fact, and given that negligence claims are no longer available in New York, the Court was constrained to dismiss the case against the owner.
While the outcome of that case was dictated by the rule developed by the Court of Appeals, the Third Department was clearly uncomfortable with the result. Although current New York law, therefore, appears to insulate an owner for liability associated with wandering animals regardless of any carelessness or negligence, that rule is likely to be revisited in the future. The Court of Appeals may develop in future cases an exception which permits negligence-based claims in the specific context of “wandering animals”, or the State legislature may adopt a statute which specifically addresses an owner’s obligations and liabilities in such circumstances.
Are you involved in a lawsuit involving an animal? Whether it is your animal or you were injured due to the owner’s negligence, our personal injury lawyer in Albany can help. Get in touch with us to schedule a free, confidential consultation about your case.