Nancy Elizabeth Bowman v. Jerry Davidson and Diana Davidson
06-14-00094-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Mar 19, 2015Background
- On June 24, 2012 Nancy Bowman was bitten in the face by Bubba, an 11‑year‑old Australian Blue Heeler owned by Jerry and Diana Davidson; Bowman sued for strict liability and negligence.
- Evidence at trial: Bubba had previously bitten family friend Billy Strong (left a bruise); Bubba was described by the Davidsons as aggressive/protective/possessive—particularly toward strangers and when anyone came between Bubba and Diana.
- The Davidsons routinely warned new guests not to interact with Bubba and sometimes put him up for large gatherings or when children visited.
- Expert testimony (veterinary behaviorist) opined Bubba exhibited abnormal, dangerous protective/possessive behaviors and that lack of training made the risk likely to worsen.
- At trial the jury answered “No” to whether the Davidsons knew or had reason to know Bubba had dangerous propensities (Question 1) and did not answer producing‑cause Question 2; judgment for defendants entered and Bowman appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency and asking the court to render findings of liability or remand for damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bowman) | Defendant's Argument (Davidson) | Held / Disposition at trial-court level (context) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did Bubba have "dangerous propensities" abnormal to its class? | Bowman's evidence (prior bite, owners' admissions of protectiveness/aggression, expert) established dangerous, abnormal tendencies as a matter of law or by great weight of the evidence. | Davidsons contested characterization—portrayed prior incidents as non‑serious/playful and argued behavior was within range for that type of dog. | Jury found “No” to knowledge/propensity (verdict for defendants); Bowman appeals. |
| 2. Did the owners know or have reason to know of those propensities? | Owners admitted warnings and prior incident; such admissions provide actual or constructive knowledge—entitling Bowman to a yes finding as matter of law or reversal as against the great weight. | Davidsons contended lack of clear notice of viciousness and minimized prior incident; claimed warnings were precautionary, not proof of knowledge of propensity to bite. | Jury answered “No”; Bowman challenges legal/factual sufficiency. |
| 3. Were Bubba’s dangerous propensities the producing cause of Bowman’s injuries? | Circumstances (Bubba between Diana and Bowman, Bowman leaned toward Diana, bite location and expert medical testimony) show Bubba acted protectively—producing cause established as matter of law or by preponderance. | Defendants implied the bite was unexpected/isolated and not necessarily caused by the admitted tendencies. | Trial court submitted producing-cause question conditional on affirmative answer to propensity/knowledge; jurors did not reach it. |
| 4. Standard-of-review question: Should appellate court render judgment (establishing liability) or remand for new trial/damages? | Bowman urged entry of judgment and remand for damages because record allegedly lacks any evidence supporting jury’s negative answers. | Defendants would argue deference to jury credibility findings and sufficiency of conflicting evidence. | Bowman raised both matter‑of‑law (no‑evidence) and great‑weight (factual‑sufficiency) points in appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) (sets Texas elements for strict liability for domestic animals: ownership, dangerous propensities abnormal to class, owner knowledge or reason to know, and producing cause)
- Poznanski ex rel. Poznanski v. Horvath, 788 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. 2003) (an unprovoked first bite does not automatically permit inferring owner knew of vicious propensities unless breed/class evidence or other facts justify imputing such knowledge)
- Deardorff v. Burger, 606 A.2d 489 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (single prior bite insufficient per se to establish owner notice of vicious propensity; owner’s mere awareness/ownership does not create absolute liability absent failure to take precautions)
- Robinson v. Marino, 3 Wash. 434 (Wash. 1892) (evidence that a dog had attacked or been known to attack people and owner statements that he feared the dog would harm someone can support submission to the jury on ferocious disposition and owner knowledge)