New York’s Highest Court Issues Blockbuster Ruling for Dog Bite Victims

ALBANY, NY, April 20, 2025 (Newswire.com)
–
In a landmark decision, the New York Court of Appeals has ruled that dog owners can now be held legally responsible for negligence when their dogs injure someone. The ruling in Flanders v. Goodfellow corrects a 2006 decision (Bard v. Jahnke) that denied victims the right to sue for careless handling of a dangerous dog. For the first time in nearly 20 years, dog bite victims in New York can pursue compensation based on negligence – a legal right that residents of all other states have always had.

Despite this progress, New York remains behind the majority of U.S. states, which provide dog bite victims with a third legal option: statutory liability. This form of “almost strict” liability allows victims to recover compensation without needing to prove the dog’s past behavior or the owner’s negligence – making it especially vital in cases where the owner is a friend, neighbor, or family member.

The Flanders case has national significance because it also holds that negligence and the one bite rule are entirely separate grounds of liability. Many state courts and legislatures have mistakenly treated them as one and the same. The New York Court of Appeals’ ruling has the potential to influence reforms in other states and improve dog bite law throughout the country.

Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips, the nation’s leading authority on dog bite law, has long advocated for reform. In 2019, he worked with State Senator Robert G. Ortt, the author of Senate Bill 122, to enact a comprehensive dog bite statute based on Phillips’ Model Dog Bite Law. The bill stalled in committee, but Phillips continues to press lawmakers in New York and other states to adopt laws that protect victims and reflect modern expectations of personal responsibility.

“Dog bite laws must evolve with the times. Most Americans have three legal paths to justice. New Yorkers now have two. That’s progress – but not enough,” said Phillips. “A dog owner is guilty of negligence when he or she ignores a significant risk from a pet, whether or not anyone was harmed by it in the past.”

Source: Law Offices of Kenneth M. Phillips